How do you like us libertarians now?

Seeing as how we've been consistently pro liberty, pro freedom, pro natural rights and have avoided the stink of corruption like the other two parties, I'm just wondering if any cons or progs are rethinking their knee jerk partisanism or are you gonna ride that train out to its authoritarian conclusion?

 

I have one major problem, who speaks for your guys and gals? Rand Paul? The TEA party? Who?

 

Speaks for "us"?

[video=youtube;JvKIWjnEPNY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKIWjnEPNY[/video]

 

My problem with libertarians has always been their unwillingness to curb some of moral issues- drugs, abortion, etc. I heard a libertarian woman on the radio last year and I forget to whom she was speaking, but the subject was animal abuse, and her stance was that since animals are property no one should be able to say beans about how the owners treat them.

Stuff like that, and legalizing prostitution and drugs keeps a lot of us away from the team in any meaningful way. Rand is a guy many of us can get behind though.

 

Not exactly.

I believe in fixing moral and social ills from a grassroots community level rather than use the force of government. This individual female speaks for herself and not many of us. Even among libertarians there is contention about the NAP. Some would say that it applies to animals, as well, and there are green libertarians who believe that pollution violates the NAP.

And yet all of us prefer community and market-based solutions to correct these issues.

 

I think part of a community based solution is to allow communities to decide for themselves on which standards they would like to live by.

Many libertarians are nuts, more like anarchists. Still, I'd rather live with anarchists than statists. It's a constant challenge to look for that steady ground on which to stand.

 

I plead guilty to being "nuts" by your definition. Statism kills and I like to live.

 

You rang?

 

[video=youtube;AjUmULa0R-8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjUmULa0R-8[/video]

 

Why is it any of your business if someone consumes a drug or hires a prostitute?

Freedom is freedom, either you like it, or you don't. Their is no reason for libertarians to bend on those issues.

 

Well, there are not many true libertarians. The false ones in the GOP only want to limit the government from their own lives, and the false ones in the Dems want the same thing.

And many of the libertarians even in their own party are nothing but "states rights" activists who only care about limiting the federal government and look the other way when the states abuse their power.

 

No, I'm uncomfortable with states doing that, too, but I'd rather have a state do it with me being able to move to a better suited state than trapped under the ominous over legislating federal government's abusive control.

 

Fine, than allow cannibalism for those who wish to practice with willing victims.

 

If the victims are willing...what do I care if someone is dumb enough to throw their life away? It's their life. Are you saying it is yours?

 

You must admit it's quite the stretch from drugs to eating people, isn't it?

Technically, I'd have to allow cannibalism if the person being eaten had allowed it in their will or something. I'm disgusted by it, of course, and so many people are as well I doubt you'd ever get it legalized. But it's simply a social taboo - after all, you're dead; a body ain't of any use to you anymore. If that's really what you want to do with your body when you die....uh, ok. There are some weird people in the world...

 

That's one hell of a stretch.

But even so, if the person consented, it's not my business. Anyone who wants to be eaten is not long for this world, regardless.

 

Having someone murder you because you want them to is the same as committing any other crime simply because someone asked you to. Even if you ask them to do it, it's still illegal to do it. Although, I suppose you could kill yourself for them, if you're really that psychotic.

 

What Libertarians are there, in order for them to be able to avoid the stink of corruption that all too often seems to permeate governing?

 

Im a conservative with many libertarian principles. Only the right takes us close to those principles and as it stands libertarians have no answer to stop the sick leftist nanny authoritarian state from getting its way. No question about there not being dirt on the hands of the GOP or major conservative parties around the West, their main problem is one thats infected both sides, the corporate and lobby group dollar/ influence. As i see it libertarians wouldnt be for voucher system health care or education and just want to take the plunged all the way to no safety net at all, ideally that would be great but totally unrealistic without total collapse. With total collapse the authoritarian commis have the clean slate to push their agenda, libertarians are no guarantee succeed there.

Work towards less govt, more pro small business policies (not globalists/ monopolies), less pointless regulation, less tax, less nanny state, and tight immigration to protect people from the over supply of labor im all for. Any conservative politician who sells us out im more than happy to dump in heart beat. All these things are against the very core of the progressive so you expect it from them, from guns, taxes to big gulps theres no place they wont redistribute/ take.

 

My "brand" of anarchism is indeed staunchly anti-state / anti-collectivism....and many would consider the efforts I go through to avoid compliance with state / collectivist constructs "extreme"....in fact, the garden variety statist would consider me a scofflaw....a criminal.

But unlike other political philosophies....even the strictest NAP libertarians....
those like me do not advocate, expect, or demand other's fall in with our ideology or lifestyles....and do not want or need "representation"

On a fundamental level, we are individual secessionists who aren't looking for consensus or approval....we just desire, and expect to be left alone...just as we believe others would desire, and expect to be left alone..... during the only life we have.

You do not know "what's in my best interest".
You do not know my definition of "common good".

Just as I don't know yours.

If I could hope for one thing, is that people would understand and respect the "need" for people who navigate this "extreme" end of the "political" spectrum.....if for nothing more than being reminded of the "baseline" every once and a while......that natural laws, respect for the natural rights of others, and voluntary trade between willing parties exist and flourish in the ABSENCE OF THE STATE,
and are the fundamental, bottom line requirement for any free society to remain that way.

If that makes any sense.

 

How do we know that the person wants to be murdered and not have body parts eaten?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you rephrase the question, Alec?

 

Well, you are gloating that Libertarians have been able to avoid the stink of corruption. I am asking you what Libertarians are actually in office. In order to be a corrupt politician, one has to first be in office.

 

Ron Paul's stuck to his guns form day one, and his son looks like he'll be doing the same.

 

Ron Paul was a right leaning libertarian and Dennis Kucinich was a left leaning libertarian. Both of them were consistent in doing what they said they would do. Look at their voting record over the 30-40 years they were in.

- - - Updated - - -

Look also at Gary Johnson's record as governor.

 

I think that you are missing the larger point which is that statistically, there just haven't been enough actual Libertarians in positions of power in order to be able to make any type of comparative analysis in regards to corruption. The fact remains that Libertarianism at this point is far more of a loosely organized philosophy, rather than being an actual governing party.