libertarianism (small L)

What is libertarianism? Any time I've ever asked a libertarian what his/her agenda cosists of, they are unable to explain in specific terms. Then after one pursues the question with a libertariand one will inevitably find the libertarian will accuse you of not understanding their agenda, as if it's too deep for anyone to understand completely. It's not, it only consists of some degree of anarchy combined with the lib's own personal priorities related to greed and socially irresponsible capitalism.

Ron Paul is a great example of a libertarian. His agenda is unspecific and caters to the worst of society. Angry people who feel disenfranchized by government and are usually coming from the ranks of the far left or far right. A marriage of political agendas made in hell that is destined to failure. A good example of such was the failed 'Reform' party of Canada which contained everything from a neoNazi like agenda on the right to a communist like agenda on the extreme left.

Step up libertarians and defend yourselves!

 

I agree with the first half of what you've said but not so much the second half. In my experience, I've noticed the more right leaning libertarians are typically more laid back about most things whereas the more left leaning ones are more high strung and dogmatic like liberals. Most libertarians are pretty cool people, but there does seem to be an air of elitist pretentiousness to some of them stemming from a faulty belief that theirs is the only belief system doesn't push morality.

I've had a few good debates in a couple of other threads recently with libertarians though, so this is probably all I'll say here. I think we've probably addressed most of our differences already.

 

Thank you for acknowledging that libertarians are both leftist and rightist. I would just add to that that they are extremists of both who are disenfranchized because their extremist agendas are not tolerated by the main stream. And so, they are forever destined to failure. As was Ron Paul and now his son, Rand Paul. However, they will always have enough extremist support to pay for their government meal ticket and that's what's important to them most of all.

 

There are many different flavors of Libertarianism. Just like there are many different flavors of left politics and right politics.

As a rule of thumb. Most people of the Libertarian persuasion belief the following. A free market, social libertarian and armed neutrality.

There are components of a Libertarian society in the world already. Take the free market of Hong Kong, combine it with the social tolerance of Holland and armed neutrality of Sweden and you got a Libertarian country.

 

Libertarian platform:

End the MIC

End the Banksters

Call me a Libertarian.

 

I love how you seriously believe Libertarian's are looking for government hand outs. When we're the only ones looking to stop with the government interventions. The Libertarian belief's aren't accepted by the main stream because of comments like that. As soon as people hear 'They will always have enough extremist support to pay for their government meal ticket', people will completely shut out anything a Libertarian has to say as if we're only for the 1%, a complete & utter fallacy. Just the like the extremist in the Democrat party who believe banning guns is going to make us safer. Just like the extremist in the Republican party who believe woman who get legitimately raped will naturally abort their child. Sure, only the Libertarian party has the extremist from those two parties.

You allow the folks in the main stream to portray Libertarian's as this evil of the world. Let us get to the root of the cause of your thinking that Libertarian's are an evil that are forever destined to fail. If Ron & Rand Paul were looking for a government meal ticket, just like the rest of us "Libertarian's" are, why would they continue to insist on trying to pass the 'Audit The Fed' bill? This bill will effectively allow all of us to know what the Federal Reserve has been doing to the monetary policy of the United States. By keeping them as non-transparent as possible, the government can continue to make a bunch of back door deals with their buddies. If Ron & Rand Paul are the "evil" that all Libertarian's all, how come all Libertarian's want this? Do you say 'this is a minor/small thing'? If so, please let me know and I will explain to how destructive these folks can be by freely printing out dollars, by giving money to foreign countries without Congress'es consent, and by creating more bubbles that will be highly destructive to the American people and the global economy as a whole. You will see, if you believe it's a minor/small thing, that this one issue is a huge issue and we will be a huge start to stopping a lot of the corruption between banks and government.

However, I definitely would love to get the funk from the Libertarian party. I do believe that what the core foundations of what the Libertarian's stand for will be better for the country. At no point do we stand with companies or the government, we stand for the people. We The People! It isn't going to take the government to fix our issues, it isn't going to take banks to keep buying up our bad debt to fix our issues, it's going to take from both of them to get out of our ways and let each individual determine what's best for themselves. So, with that in mind, answer me this, what aspects of the Libertarian party makes you believe the Libertarian belief is full of extremists and looking for a government meal ticket? I want to discuss each point as I think the people you've discussed libertarianism with, they either didn't know what they were talking about or gave you false sense of what it truly is about.

 

I'm not suggesting that libertarians are looking for government handouts, I'm suggesting that libertarians such as Rand Paul will always have enough fringe support to keep him in a paid political position. I would suggest that was the most important thing to his father because he wasted a lot of years to just come out a loser nationally. I'm certainly not making the accusation that libs are only for the 1%. I don't think they really know what they are for, but know too many things they are against.

When you use the word libertarian you can capitalize it if you're speaking of the Libertarian party. When you capitalize it when speaking of libertarians in general then you are being specific to certain libertarians and that is confusing. Continue with that mistake if you must. And the rest of that paragraph didn't make any sense.

Ron Paul and Rand Paul cater to a select group and they know the kind of rhetoric that pleases their followers. They've simply carved out a niche with enough outcasts to keep them in politics. Their following is mostly motivated by hate because they are the disenfranchized to which mainstream can't appeal.

Don't pretend to stand for 'we the people' because the people don't want your persuasion to stand for them. Only a small number buy it and those are the people who don't understand that libertarianism is 'for' nothing. It's only 'against' everything.

You misunderstood my comment on a 'meal ticket' but I've already explained that. When the libertarian speaks of smaller government they refuse to be specific on how they would make government smaller. But fair enough, each individual one has his own bone to pick, which usually isn't the same bone as the next one picks. Some libertarians would outlaw stop signs and others who are less extremist would outlaw seat belt laws. Others would abolish necessary taxes. Which of the lot are you?

Let's assume that you're one that would abolish nearly all taxes. If that's true then you should have no trouble telling me what taxes you would eliminate.

That's the best I can do with your questions until I know what bones you have chosen to pick with society.

And just a fair warning for you. Don't think for a minute that I haven't been over all this with some of America's foremost libertarians and supplysiders. (same thing) Check out supplysideforum.com and see if you can get in. You'll fit right in if you really understand your own ideology. I suspect that you don't yet and I suspect that they would consider you an embarrassment. These are people on a level with Jude Wanniski, Art Laffer, the late Milton Friedman, and their ilk. All of them terribly wrong of course.

 

Libertarian, conservative, liberal, all words that mean different things to different people.

What it means to me:
A libertarian is someone who believes that the purpose of government was described in the Declaration of Independence .... it is for the preservation of these liberties that governments are instituted among men.... the purpose of government is to protect our god given rights.

Not to protect us from ourselves.
Not to protect us from the consequences of our own actions.
Not to provide us with the necessities of life, let alone the luxuries.
to protect our liberties.

Further, the libertarian philosophy is that your liberty is only limited when it infringes on someone else's liberty. My freedom ends where your nose begins, and vice versa.

That's what a libertarian (small l) means to me.

 

That sounds so rehearsed. But I'm not an American so I can't say for sure that you are confusing the declaration of indepence with your constitution. But I think you are. In any case, what either say can be easily interpreted to mean what you want it to mean or it can mean what another person of totally opposing political bent to yours wants it to mean. And for the most part, it means nothing without an interpretation.

We can discuss it further if you want to be specific. Don't quote the whole thing because I'll ignore it. Quote some specific section and I'll respond to it with a different interpretation from yours that will be just as valid. That is, providing you supply your own interpretation for me.

 

monty1,

I don't understand why you result to insults through out this discussion. I don't care if I spell it LiBeRtArIaN, it means the same thing, stop being petty. Or I can be just as ridiculously petty as you and say in the other thread we were discussing, you stated "'mini-aranchist'". It's "Minarchism" and I told you were I stood on it. Regardless if you wish to believe me or not, that's up to you.

And to give Rand Paul more accolades, he's had a filibuster since 11:47AM in getting an answer on if the White House believes killing US citizens with drones without due process is legal or not. Simple question, simple answer, http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/. I might be considered an 'embarrassment' to some people that consider themselves 'elitist', but I'm not an embarrassment when it comes to knowing what's right & wrong.

 

I'm not resorting to insults, I'm merely telling you that it's misleading when capitalize wrongly. If you wish to refer to the Libertarian party then I understand what you are attempting to say. If you capitalize the word libertarian then I am led to believe that you are talking about some specific libertarians or in fact the Libertarian party.

The US government killing it's citizens by any means is unconstitutional and illegal but there are exceptions to the rule. the police or the military, both of which are representing government can legally kill an American citizen when the instance warrants such. Same as in Canada of course. The drone or the gun is not important in the least and there is no justification for saying there is a difference, providing the drone is used in a discriminate manner. But that's also true for the gun too.

This is a phony issue being strung out by Rand Paul because he knows he can con people into following him solely based on their hate for Obama. It's cheap and tawdry politics. Shame on those who fall for it!

edit: And guess what kids. This little theatrical show on the part of Rand Paul will be the beginning of his end on the national scene. He thinks he's building on his bid for president but he's sadly mistaken. He's showing his extremist bent by refusing to recognize the simple truth I spelled out above on the gove's representatives to kill Americans in some circumstances. This is all Obama hate and nothing more.

 

I see libertarianism as a political philosophy with a very simple moral premise. It is wrong to ever initiate aggression (violence), or threaten to initiate aggression, against another human being for the purpose of advancing an economic or social agenda, or any other reason for that matter.

So, if you disagree, explain, objectively, why it is right to commit violence against a peaceful person for your reasons, but not for reasons with which you disagree.

 

Libertarianism is not an economic philosophy. It is simply a set of principles for how human being should behave toward each other in a political environment. Now, libertarians often take well to Austrian economics (which is not the same as the vague "supply side") because of the free market components, but they are not one and the same by any means. Nor does libertarianism define one's personal moral principles. For instance, you may find it immoral to lie or to cheat on your spouse, and yet also find it wrong for to use the political violence of the state to punish liars and adulterers. In your personal life, you may be quite the the authoritarian, eschewing the company of any who do not come up to your moral standard, and yet may be a full on libertarian who does not demand that everyone live according to your standard. Most people can't see the difference between what they want for themselves and what they demand be imposed upon everyone else, and so fully embrace the state and it's violence to punish their neighbors for their peaceful, if subjectively undesirable, behavior. A libertarian does know the difference.

 

It may be unconstitutional and illegal according to statute, but can you explain why it's wrong?

 

Are you serious?

Are any of us supposed to believe that you don't understand that what Paul is talking about is lethal force without Habeus corpus or due process, and what you are talking about is lethal force in the process of attempting to give due process, and your right to habeus corpus?




FAIL!!

 

The taking of human life is wrong and that includes capital punishment. And in fact, the reasons why explaining why capital punishment is wrong is perhaps the best way to explain why all killing is wrong. My first choice for an explanation is because it's a copout from bearing responsibility for what society has created. It's a primitive instinct of striking out with punishment instead of bearing the responsibility to rehabilitate. Killing is a failure of humanity to rise above base animal instincts.

It extends also to the killing of other mammals and animals when the proper motivation to kill is not present. As with the killing of human beings, the killing of animals is too often motivated by reasons other than those expressed.

 

libertarians generally lean more towards the right, or you could say that the right generally leans more towards liberarianism. *shrug* it all depends on where you focus. Some people who hear that I'm a libertarian assume I'll vote for Obama because of gay marriage and abortion. They can't imagine any other issues that might be more important to a libertarian, or any differing views from their own on those issues coming from a libertarian perspective.

libertarianism is this: advocating individual liberty, freedom, and voluntary association, with as little government interference in society as is possible. That's it.

Nazis and Communists are, by the way, incompatible with libertarians. The libertarian worldview is mainly focused on the scope of government, and libertarians couldn't be any further from Nazis and Communists (unless they were to be some form of Anarchists). This way of looking at the world is why libertarians have generally thrown their hat in with the GOP. The GOP is friendly to the idea of smaller government, and the Democrats are hostile to it.

 

So, then, you agree that the state has a rule, and you believe that the state is wrong even so. Now, let's extend that to violence against another human being that is not in response to his threat of or use of violence, when is it right? For instance, why should I be allowed to put you into a cage for possessing, selling, or ingesting marijuana or any other substance you might choose to possess, sell, or ingest? If I am not allowed, why is it permissible or legitimate for the state to do it?

 

pimptight:

If the question was only about due process then it wouldn't be about drones. There is nothing that differentiates the killing by drones from the killing with a gun. Both can include due process and coversely, both may not. You don't fool me with that comment so I can only believe that you are trying to make a fool of yourself.

It's you that can't be serious! Why in the world would you suggest this has something to do with due process? Has it got something to do with your belief that killing with a drone is more indiscriminate killing than with a gun?

Obama has already had Holder define the limits of killing with drones and that is more than enough. How do you interpret this as being a violation of Habeus Corpus?This is all a big stage act being put on by Rand Paul to delight stupid people who are haters of Obama. They've picked a really lame horse to ride this time. Rand Paul is an ignorant fool who won't ever even measure up to his wacko daddy!

Or rather, he would be if he didn't know better!

 

The GOP pretends to be friendly to the idea of smaller government, but has never proven to be so except in some very limited cases. The one thing it doesn't exhibit is the outright worship of the state common among the progressive left. I grew up in a very liberal/socialist household, and my views lean very left. I embrace fully the principle of non-violence, which I was taught in my liberal/socialist household, and it disturbs me that those who were raised similarly do not see the violence inherent in the policies they advocate from government.

 

never proven? It's been well proven to be more friendly to the idea of a smaller government than the Democrats. I'd like to hear argument otherwise.

So how's this tie in?

- - - Updated - - -

never proven? It's been well proven to be more friendly to the idea of a smaller government than the Democrats. I'd like to hear argument otherwise.

So how's this tie in?

 

Obama was more friendly to the idea of ending the war in Iraq and closing Guantanamo. Actions speak far louder than words.

Well, I got the impression that you believe most libertarians lean right. In fact, you didn't say that, so I apologize. I should have concluded my comment by saying that I have never voted for anyone in the GOP, and never would, except, perhaps, for Ron Paul. I have never known the Republican party to be friendly to liberty.

- - - Updated - - -

Obama was more friendly to the idea of ending the war in Iraq and closing Guantanamo. Actions speak far louder than words.

Well, I got the impression that you believe most libertarians lean right. In fact, you didn't say that, so I apologize. I should have concluded my comment by saying that I have never voted for anyone in the GOP, and never would, except, perhaps, for Ron Paul. I have never known the Republican party to be friendly to liberty.

 

K. When you break it down the GOP and Dems, at the Congressional level, really had the same ideas about Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. k

So who cut taxes? Who opposed the expansion of government power in health care? Who opposed the bail out? Who opposed the stimulus package? Who scaled back welfare? Who has opposed tariffs? Who has opposed the estate tax? Who has opposed restriction of our 2nd amendment rights? Who has opposed government interference in energy markets? Who has supported school choice? Who has supported individual control of retirement? In every case, Republicans. When you stop and realize the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't a Republican thing, they were a bi-partisan thing, what else is left? There are a few issues, but they are few. The number of issues where Dems fall on the side of big government outnumber the number of things where Republicans do. Plain and simple.

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, they're Republicans. Do you know (and this is an honest question) of any libertarian Democrats in office? People who support a minimalist government?

 

Nice move where you pull my name out the quote so it doesn't notify me.

Here is the thing about drones.

Can they arrest people?

Then how in the hell are they being used to give people due process?

 

I am not a libertarian, but I identify with the core philosophical tenets of libertarianism. What I deem to be libertarianism is a political philosophy that is concerned with the minimization of coercion and the maximization of freedom. These are the fundamental elements of libertarianism I prescribe to.