Anybody else ready for libertarianism?

[Snide]

Bingo. I like freedom for individuals and businesses. However I concede that there needs be some degree of regulation and even socialism. The question is, how much? I like the typical, less is more approach. Too much worries more than too little.

Funny thing on this board is, with all the disagreeing that goes on among the American posters, the Europeans see us as The Right and The Right Light.

I'm much more close politically with you than I am with, say, Claus. But Claus probably would have supported the guy I voted for (Kerry) v. the guy you voted for (Bush). Just speculating there, but I think that's a pretty educated guess. Heck, I bet I'm more closely aligned politically with Jocko and BPSCG than I am with Claus, Earthborn, etc.

edited typo

 

[RandFan]

Funny thing on this board is, with all the disagreeing that goes on among the American posters, the Europeans see us as The Right and The Right Light.

I'm much more close politically with you than I am with, say, Claus. But Claus probably would have supported the guy I voted for (Kerry) v. the guy you voted for (Bush). Just speculating there, but I think that's a pretty educated guess. Heck, I bet I'm more closely aligned politically with Jocko and BPSCG than I am with Claus, Earthborn, etc.

edited typo

Yes, you are correct. However I wanted McCain.

 

[toddjh]

If you added a "I might consider Libertarianism if they were about 50% less crazy" option, I'd pick that.

The current LP are a bunch of loons who are seriously deluded regarding their importance. All they are succeeding in doing is preventing more moderate social liberals/fiscal conservatives from having a realistic shot at office.

Jeremy

 

[billydkid]

Most in here are not big fans of libertarians. Though most will disagree, I say it is either because they don't really understand it or grasp the greater implications or they have an agenda based on inculcated fears of the dangers of genuine liberty - the notion that people will go insane and start victimizing each other without our wise and noble overseers. The notion that without the state we are lost. The bottom line of libertarianism, in my view, is live and let live, with some golden rule thrown in. Also, there can be no genuine crime without a victim and you can't commit a "crime" against yourself.

 

[billydkid]

Seems to me Liberatarianism is all about people running their own lives, without interference from any government.

Problem is two-fold, at least: 1. most people are stupid. 2. Stupid actions committed by party A can often have adverse effects on parties B through
Z, through no fault of their own.

Most people are stupid - so that qualifies them to govern over other people??? People can't be trusted to govern themselves, but they can be trusted to govern other people?

 

[Kerberos]

Most in here are not big fans of libertarians. Though most will disagree, I say it is either because they don't really understand it or grasp the greater implications or they have an agenda based on inculcated fears of the dangers of genuine liberty - the notion that people will go insane and start victimizing each other without our wise and noble overseers. The notion that without the state we are lost. The bottom line of libertarianism, in my view, is live and let live, with some golden rule thrown in. Also, there can be no genuine crime without a victim and you can't commit a "crime" against yourself.

Or possibly we're against it because we do understand it and do grasp the greater implications.

 

[toddjh]

Most people are stupid - so that qualifies them to govern over other people??? People can't be trusted to govern themselves, but they can be trusted to govern other people?

One of the fundamental axioms of the concept of the republic is that those who are elected will be better qualified to lead than the general public. That's an abhorrent concept to some, but it appears to work fairly well in practice, despite the corruption inherent in politics.

Jeremy

 

[billydkid]

One of the fundamental axioms of the concept of the republic is that those who are elected will be better qualified to lead than the general public. That's an abhorrent concept to some, but it appears to work fairly well in practice, despite the corruption inherent in politics.

Jeremy

What would it look like if it weren't working fairly well? You don't really believe that without of superiors holding the rudder we would be floundering off course do you? Are we on course? How do you tell? It is part of the business of government to convince the governed how in need of governing they are and how at risk the country would be without them at the helm. I suspect that we would be holding a truer course were government restricted to performing the minimum essential tasks and restricted itself only to making those collective decisions that can't be made by each of us individually. Makes me think of that wretched Charleton Heston movie, Moses, where, when Moses goes up to mountain top to get his tablets, everybody goes hogwild raping and pillaging and engaging in general mayhem - without the guiding moral authority of Moses and his tablets. That is how many people think of government. I think it is hogwash.

 

[billydkid]

Or possibly we're against it because we do understand it and do grasp the greater implications.

You do realize that Libertarians get their principles directly from the founding fathers, right? That it is based on the same ideas which inspired the American revolution? That equality and self determination are basic to the original American ethos?

 

[CFLarsen]

But when he answers with that "one thing," do you promise not to ask him to prove that?

I'm sure that this "one good thing" (note the qualifier) can be found elsewhere, too.

 

[toddjh]

You do realize that Libertarians get their principles directly from the founding fathers, right?

Strange, since the founding fathers explicitly recognized and condoned slavery in the Constitution, and Libertarians keep telling me they're against that.

That it is based on the same ideas which inspired the American revolution?

I seem to recall something about "taxation without representation" in there, too.

That equality and self determination are basic to the original American ethos?

If you're a white male landowner, sure.

Appeal to authority.

Jeremy

 

[Earthborn]

Funny thing on this board is, with all the disagreeing that goes on among the American posters, the Europeans see us as The Right and The Right Light.

That's true of the Democratic and Republican parties, but I'm not so sure about individual Americans. When I consider the views of posters here, I can often imagine self proclaimed Republicans vote for social democratic parties in Europe. The only reason they seem to have for voting Republican is that they don't wish to be associated with a party attracting wacko lefties. In Europe they could vote for social democrats, knowing that the wackos have a party of their own. Something similar is true of self proclaimed democrats: in Europe they would likely prefer classical liberal parties which more to the right side of the political spectrum, but in the US they chose the democrats because they don't want to be associated with the religious right.

In the US politics is so polarised between two parties, that there is very little dicussion on where people actually fit on the political spectrum. A two party system is not really all that much better than a one party system.

Heck, I bet I'm more closely aligned politically with Jocko and BPSCG than I am with Claus, Earthborn, etc.

Nobody is close to me politically! I don't like it if people come too close to me politically.

Though most will disagree, I say it is either because they don't really understand it

True, but I think that's true of all political philosophies. People who are against a political philosophy are against it, because they fail to understand it. If they tried a little harder to understand it, they would often see that they are really not all that different from eachother. I think this is especially true of people who call themselves 'libertarians' and people who call themselves 'socialists' or 'communists'.

People can't be trusted to govern themselves, but they can be trusted to govern other people?

No, people should not be trusted to govern over other people at all. Libertarians still believe that in some aspects - such as the protection of property - people should govern.

Governing should be left to systems which eliminate human stupidity. This is entirely possible, but it requires the understanding that human intelligence is limited and that no one is able to govern anything by letting them freely make choices without being corrected by others.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, people should not be trusted to govern over other people at all. Libertarians still believe that in some aspects - such as the protection of property - people should govern.

Almost correct. Libertarians believe that Libertarians should govern other people. Those who don't agree go to jail.

 

[Diamond]

Despite libertarianism having some good aspects, not a lot of people vote for libertarian political parties and the question is why?

One of the reasons, that no-one has touched upon is religious belief. The LP is seen (rightly or wrongly) as a haven for non-mainstream belief or even (horror of horrors) as a haven for secular humanists, agnostics, atheists and other immoral undesireables.

Saying reasonable things is not enough for any political movement to be successful.

 

[Kerberos]

You do realize that Libertarians get their principles directly from the founding fathers, right? That it is based on the same ideas which inspired the American revolution? That equality and self determination are basic to the original American ethos?

I know that Libertarians like to say so however let's just assume it's true for the sake of the argument. So what? I never signed any paper commiting me to automatically agreeing with the Founding Fathers, and I retain the right to agree or disagree with these principles on their merits and to consider them silly, iimpractical, outdated and/or morally repugnant where appropriate.

 

[Kerberos]

Despite libertarianism having some good aspects, not a lot of people vote for libertarian political parties and the question is why?

One of the reasons, that no-one has touched upon is religious belief. The LP is seen (rightly or wrongly) as a haven for non-mainstream belief or even (horror of horrors) as a haven for secular humanists, agnostics, atheists and other immoral undesireables.

Saying reasonable things is not enough for any political movement to be successful.

Ehh, no, but in the case of the Libertarian party it would probably be a good start.

 

[Darat]

You do realize that Libertarians get their principles directly from the founding fathers, right? That it is based on the same ideas which inspired the American revolution? That equality and self determination are basic to the original American ethos?

This has come up several times and I think it is wrong. Everything I have read leads me to believe that many of the "founding fathers" were liberal and they wished to create a liberal society and nation. The evidence is that the Bill of Rights, the Constitution etc are liberal documents not libertarian documents.

I think the confusion is that libertarianism and liberalism do share some common ideas, but the two are distinct.

 

[slingblade]

Name one thing that Libertarianism is good for, that isn't found in other political philosophies.
I won't ask that you prove it, then. But I will ask you to name just that one thing.

Nah, I'll just take it back. I tend to operate on the general principle that everything is "good for something" in at least some way, however minor. But I could be wrong.

 

[Kerberos]

Name one thing that Libertarianism is good for, that isn't found in other political philosophies.

I believe they'd be very effective in fighting overpopulation.

 

[ysabella]

You guys are throwing around Libertarianism and libertarianism without defining your terms - there is a difference between the party (big L) and the more general philosophy (small l). Also, like the main two parties, there is a wide spectrum of beliefs. I know a 'minarchist libertarian' who believes government should do almost nothing, and my own beliefs are quite different. But I do agree with some of the general principles. I certainly agree that the fiscal conservative/socially liberal types are pretty disenfranchised these days.

I haven't actually joined the political party, but I am watching and listening. A lot of the time, what the Libertarians propose (like here in my state) is a bit too extreme for me - all the same, I am for a smaller and less intrusive government, and am appalled by ideas like universal public preschool (especially if it's mandatory from age 3 as some would like it to be).