Anybody else ready for libertarianism?

[CFLarsen]

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.

Fair enough.

 

[DavidJames]

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.

That's the most vacuous, meaningless paragraph I've read in quite a while and I agree with it 100%.

We get so wrapped up in labels and trying to apply negative (often strawman) positions to the labels of others that it seems we are completely and hopelessly polarized. With most issues, it isn't binary (capitalism vs socialism), as you say it's a matter of degree. Note I started this paragraph with we, sadly, I find myself part of the problem as well.

Here is a nice editorial I read today which, discusses this. http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_3284821

 

[jj]

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.

I think that the founding fathers were more in the Enlightenment mold, really.

This comes out to looking liberal, but I do believe that they were acting from at least mildly different motivations.

 

[gnome]

-No planet x option
-No option to disagree without saying they're all wrong.
-Therefore I did not vote

 

[MrFrankZito]

Everybody raises good points. I do not in any way dispute the fact that libertarian governance would have some significant negative consequences. If you repeal seatbelt laws, more people will die in accidents. If you repeal drug laws, more people will abuse drugs. If you repeal all content restrictions on broadcast TV, eventually hardcore porn will show up in primetime. If you legalize all assault weapons, more gun-related crimes will probably occur.

But, I care more about PRINCIPLES than consequences. I stand up for the principle of freedom, even if putting that principle into action will have somewhat negative effects. Freedom, in my view, is its own reward. I stand up for liberty for the sake of liberty. Now, of course, I have to draw the line at some point. I simply draw the line in a very different place than most. I am willing to trade in elements of fairness, niceness, compassion, security and safety in the name of liberty. Hence, "libertarian" is a great label for me.

 

[luchog]

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

Citation? Or is this just another piece of ◊◊◊◊ pulled out of your rectum that you won't bother to support?

 

[luchog]

If you repeal drug laws, more people will abuse drugs.

This has already been effectively proven to be untrue. In fact, in places where drugs have been legallized, or at least decriminalized, the opposite has happened.

If you repeal all content restrictions on broadcast TV, eventually hardcore porn will show up in primetime.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

If you legalize all assault weapons, more gun-related crimes will probably occur.

Also demonstrably untrue, as has been shown in three separate threads in the last few months.

 

[RandFan]

That's the most vacuous, meaningless paragraph I've read in quite a while and I agree with it 100%.

I aim to please.

 

[DavidJames]

But, I care more about PRINCIPLES than consequences.

I don't know if this is the creed of all Libertarians, but sometimes that's the feeling I get, in which case it's exactly why I loathe the concept. What I'm hearing you say is To Hell with you, it's all about me.

No thanks.

 

[CFLarsen]

Citation? Or is this just another piece of ◊◊◊◊ pulled out of your rectum that you won't bother to support?

Temper, temper. Such hatred is rather unbecoming...

'ere ya go...

 

[Art Vandelay]

I think that you are suffering from a common phenomenon: you are a libertarian, you hold certain views, therefore you consider these views to be specifically libertarian. It's important to remember that libertarianism is a starting point. It's a basis through which one forms one's political stances, but it doesn't determine all of them, and it's important not to fall into the trap of thinking that anyone who disagrees with any of your views is not a libertarian. This is the kind of thinking that turns one into a fanatic, whether it's a libertarian fanatic, Christian fanatic, communist fanatic, or whatever.

1. The government should get out of the marriage business and instead issue only civil union licenses. As an element of that, such licenses should be granted to homosexual couples, polygamous groups and incestuous couples, providing that they are all consenting adults.

This isn't really a libertarian issue, as long as the the government doesn't interfere with unofficial polygamous relationships, etc. And the concept of marriage can't really be applied to polygamous groups.

3. Free trade policy should be fully embraced, and global free trade alliances sought. Tariffs and protectionism should be considered "dirty words" and never viewed as a viable solution to any problem.

As long as nationalism exists, it is naive to pretend otherwise. While in general free trade is good, there are important national security issues. What if, just prior to the outbreak of WWII, the US had been entirely dependent on Germany to produce combustion engines?

4. Military spending should be drastically cut. The military should only be used for defense, and never for imperialistic purposes. With such a policy, the US would never have gotten involved in Vietnam, the Rwandan genocide, Kosovo, the current Iraq debacle, or the Mid-East peace process.

Those wars were not fought for imperialism. And didn't we not get involved in the Rwandan genocide? Do you think it's a good thing for the US not to stop genocides?

5. Drastically cut back foreign aid (perhaps to zero), particularly military/political aid. Slowly begin to withdraw from, or play a lesser role in, organizations such as NATO and other permanent military alliances.

Not really a libertarian issue. Anyway, domestic aid programs are a much bigger issue.

6. Remove religion from the public square. No more "Under God" and no more "In God We Trust." No more swearing on Bibles in the government and no more publicly posted Ten Commandments. Religion, much like pornography, for example, must be isolated to the realm of the private.

Such a hostile attitude towards religion is anti-libertarian. People should be free to be religious just as much as they should be free to not be religious. What should be removed is government endorsement of religion, not religion itself.

7. Finally end the War on Drugs. Period. Legalize all drugs for adult sale/use, including substances such as steroids and ephedra.

Drugs should be legalized, but still regulated.

8. Formally recognize that personal medical decisions are PERSONAL medical decisions. The government has no right to interfere with such things as abortion or assisted suicide.

The real issue in the abortion debate is whether the fetus qualifies as a human being. If you believe that it does, then the libertarian position would be to outlaw abortion.

10. Cut back government spending on health coverage, with the goal of making it zero. The government footing one's health bills only gives the government more justification to interject itself into one's personal health choices. If one is responsible for one's own medical bills, one will have full freedom to make whatever healthy/unhealthy choices one wishes.

11. Since an educated populace is any country's greatest strength, renew federal efforts to make education more accessible, more affordable and of better quality. School vouchers will NEVER be a part of the solution; vouchers are part of the problem. After all, apparently, private schools have a right to teach fiction as truth (Intelligent Design).

So get government out of health care, but get it into education? Aren't you being inconsistent? And it seems to me that supporting vouchers is the pro-libertarian position. If a school is getting vouchers, then we can make a requirement be that they not teach ID.

12. Reduce our use of coal and oil. Work toward creating better means of producing energy. Aim for a time when the US will have no use for oil whatsoever. Then, we can truly free ourselves from Middle Eastern policy.

I don't see how this is a libertarian position, nor do you give any concrete ideas of what this would entail. It would almost certainly involve interfering with the free market, so how is that libertarian?

13. Crack down on illegal immigration. Deport illegals, irrespective of if they've been here for 2 days or 2 decades. Do not reward criminal behavior with amnesty or work-toward-legalization programs. Crack down on companies that hire illegals, and file lawsuits against such companies.

This one is particularly odd. Laws against immigration are a form of protectionism, something you earlier opposed. Isn't allowing people to decide who they want to hire a libertarian principle?

 

[Art Vandelay]

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

That's an idiotic question.

Temper, temper. Such hatred is rather unbecoming...

Hatred of dishonesty is quite becoming.

'ere ya go...

That's just one Libertarian. And your cite doesn't really support your position, even for him. There is nothing there to suggest that Badnarik would put people in jail for disagreeing with the idea that Libertarians should govern other people.

But, I care more about PRINCIPLES than consequences. I stand up for the principle of freedom, even if putting that principle into action will have somewhat negative effects.

This is a point that some people seem to be completely unable to understand. They keep asking things like "but if you get of antidiscrimination laws, how are you going to get rid of discrimination", simply not getting the concept that some people think that there are actually things more important than getting rid of discrimination.

I don't know if this is the creed of all Libertarians, but sometimes that's the feeling I get, in which case it's exactly why I loathe the concept. What I'm hearing you say is To Hell with you, it's all about me.

Projection, anyone? What I hear you saying is "I get to tell you what to do. For you to in any dispute my right to tell you what to do is loathesome and incredibly selfish." Seems to me that it's all about you. You get to tell other people what to do, any anyone who disagrees is a despicable human being.

 

[luchog]

Temper, temper. Such hatred is rather unbecoming...

'ere ya go...

/s/hatred/frustration

I certainly don't hate you, you're not worth that much of my energy and mental capacity. Frankly, I'm having a hard time seeing you as anything but a troll, considering your complete inability to support any of your assertions, and your consistent misrepresentation or dismissal of anything you can't refute.

 

[luchog]

This isn't really a libertarian issue, as long as the the government doesn't interfere with unofficial polygamous relationships, etc. And the concept of marriage can't really be applied to polygamous groups.

Actually, marriage is definitely a libertarian issue; because the government is heavily involved in it. It does, in fact, interfere with someone's ability to marry whomever they please; and it grants special privileges, both legal and financial, only to those marriages that they officially recognize. Everyone else is denied those privileges, and thereby treated as second-class citizens simply because they're gay, polygamous, etc. It's state-sanctioned discrimination, period. A few decades ago, interracial marriages weren't officially recognized in many states. I like to think that dropping that bit of discrimination was a step forward. That is why the official platform plank of the LP regarding this issue is to "Get government out of the marriage business". Making marriages of all sorts simply a standard civil contract, entered into by anyone capable of and interested in consenting to the contract, eliminates that discrimination.

So get government out of health care, but get it into education? Aren't you being inconsistent? And it seems to me that supporting vouchers is the pro-libertarian position. If a school is getting vouchers, then we can make a requirement be that they not teach ID.

Most libs see vouchers as an interim step to getting the government out of education altogether; and some radicals oppose them simply because it's only an interim step -- all or nothing.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Actually, marriage is definitely a libertarian issue; because the government is heavily involved in it.

According to that logic, every law is a libertarian issue.

It does, in fact, interfere with someone's ability to marry whomever they please; and it grants special privileges, both legal and financial, only to those marriages that they officially recognize.

It interferes only with the ability of one to get one's marriage recognized by the government. If the government were to recongnize no marriages, that would make it even worse.

Everyone else is denied those privileges, and thereby treated as second-class citizens simply because they're gay, polygamous, etc.

It's rather hyperbolic to call them "second class citizens" simply because they are denied a privilege, and inaccurate to say that they are denied the privileges because of their orientation or because they're polygamous.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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

We have a winner! Pick any prize from the top shelf.

 

[Kerberos]

It interferes only with the ability of one to get one's marriage recognized by the government. If the government were to recongnize no marriages, that would make it even worse.

Ahh, but principles are more important than consequences. This is a point that some people seem to be completely unable to understand.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

Of course, the main reason is that every candidate they field is a nut. Look no further.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Everybody raises good points. I do not in any way dispute the fact that libertarian governance would have some significant negative consequences. If you repeal seatbelt laws, more people will die in accidents. If you repeal drug laws, more people will abuse drugs. If you repeal all content restrictions on broadcast TV, eventually hardcore porn will show up in primetime. If you legalize all assault weapons, more gun-related crimes will probably occur.

But, I care more about PRINCIPLES than consequences. I stand up for the principle of freedom, even if putting that principle into action will have somewhat negative effects. Freedom, in my view, is its own reward. I stand up for liberty for the sake of liberty. Now, of course, I have to draw the line at some point. I simply draw the line in a very different place than most. I am willing to trade in elements of fairness, niceness, compassion, security and safety in the name of liberty. Hence, "libertarian" is a great label for me.

/Chuch Lady

Well isn't that special?

/end

 

[CFLarsen]

That's an idiotic question.

Then you shouldn't have any problems answering it.

That's just one Libertarian.

No. Not just "one Libertarian". The Libertarian Presidential Candidate. Yes, from the Libertarian Party.

If you have problems with that, take it up with the the Party.

And your cite doesn't really support your position, even for him. There is nothing there to suggest that Badnarik would put people in jail for disagreeing with the idea that Libertarians should govern other people.

Sure: Those disagreeing with Badnarik's interpretation of the Constitution go to jail.

This is a point that some people seem to be completely unable to understand. They keep asking things like "but if you get of antidiscrimination laws, how are you going to get rid of discrimination", simply not getting the concept that some people think that there are actually things more important than getting rid of discrimination.

That doesn't answer the question, though. Simply pointing to different priorities doesn't solve anything.

Projection, anyone? What I hear you saying is "I get to tell you what to do. For you to in any dispute my right to tell you what to do is loathesome and incredibly selfish." Seems to me that it's all about you. You get to tell other people what to do, any anyone who disagrees is a despicable human being.

You know what? This is exactly what we hear from Our Resident Elected Libertarian Shanek. Anyone disagreeing with him are IDIOTS, FREEDOM-LOVING BIGOTS, and a host of other nasty things.