I've recently thought about becoming a libertarian, but I have a few questions.

1. Do they support all drug use, like cocain, heroin, ecstatsy, or only mariajuana and beer and such.

2. Do they only support assisted suicide in extreme situations, or can any guy just shoot himself any time he feels like it?

What about a husband kiling himself and leaving his family penniless, doesnt that harm someone?

3. Prostitution? Doesnt it harm no one but the consenting indidividuals?

4. Abortion, do they believe that abortion harms no one, or is the fetus a human being?

5. What about things like wearing a helmet or a seatbelt. A death without them would hurt no one else....

If anyone actually answers this, I;m only curious about mainstream, average guy/gal views. Not radical libertarians. Just average/general views.

Thanks.

Libertarianism is a scale. Want less government involvement in something? Then you have a libertarian belief. You'll rarely find two libertarians that agree on every issue. I can only speak for myself with your questions. I'm fairly extreme in my beliefs, but not in my actions. Most of my more radical views I understand could not be put into effect for decades or centuries.

I don't support any street drug use. You must understand that. I think drugs are a terrible idea. However, I don't believe the government can truly stop the sale and purchase of drugs such as marijuana. So much taxpayer wealth goes towards stopping the drug trade, with a very small success rate. We imprison hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug users, again a drain on taxpayer wealth. I am for any legislation or step which diminishes the amount of money the government spends on basically non-violent activities. However, I do not use drugs... I do not support any drug use.

Can he? Sure. A guy can kill himself if he wants to. It's dumb to think otherwise. I don't support it, and would do anything I could to talk a friend out of it, but what purpose is making it illegal? Who benefits? If somebody really wants to die.... What's the government going to do about it?

Sure it does. But if you wanted to die, I mean really wanted to die, would you even consider the legality of the action? Of course not. You'd just do it.

Athletes make money with their bodies.

Again, I don't purchase the services of prostitutes, but the government wastes time with trying to stop people from paying others for sex. It's a waste of time and money.

This is a very personal question that needs to be answered by every individual. My political position on abortion is that it should be up to the states, not the federal government.

That's too easy, although there is so much public land these days. I believe that there needs to be a massive reduction in public land, and that liberty is best enjoyed and protected on private property. But since there is so much public land, who else to make the laws governing public land than democracies and elected officials? It's unfortunate, but I don't really have a problem with seat belt laws as much as how much public property exists.






True Libertarianism doesn't include enjoying destructive behaviors. It includes the idea that the government cannot control many of these behaviors and that the people will find a way to buy and do what they want. I don't do drugs. I don't advocate abortion. I don't purchase prostitutes. However, the government will waste untold billions of dollars in trying to fight and control these things. I think it's a waste of time.

I was once attracted to libertarianism as I was to just about every ideology at some point (except fascism, never liked that one). It's a neat philosophy, a very consistent one. But some day you might ask questions about just how well it would work rather than what the ideals are. I like to believe that people riding around without helmets is a victimless crime. But it means higher insurance rates for everyone. I'm okay with insurance not covering people for outright stupidity, but how would such a policy be written? Drugs begin with choice, but many of the side effects of certain drugs lead to actual psychological biological changes, creating addiction. These changes lead to work-related accidents, car accidents, abuse, and lack of income which then leads to crime. Criminal justice has to be paid for even in libertarianism, otherwise we're talking real anarchy. Most research shows a decrease in overall societal prices with some of the seemingly by-choice programs we fund.
My feeling on libertarianism is that it's too absolute, too simple. Chances are if an outlook can truly be explained in only a couple sentences, then lead to questions that make you go "uh...What?", it's probably flawed. Take the bits of libertarianism you like, but don't "become" a libertarian. You may have to lose touch with reality to complete the transformation. Remember. Life isn't simple.

The market provides many examples of insurance firms that stipulate that if you get into an accident on a motorcycle without a helmet, they are not liable. It makes economic sense for insurance companies to protect their own assets. As the economy grows, many firms will evolve to protect themselves and their consumers.

It's pretty simple. The insurance policy states: "We will cover you unless it is determined you were not wearing a seatbelt (cars) or helmet (bikes)."

I agree. Drugs are terrible. But how well has the government stopped addiction? The illegality of these drugs only serves to prop up gang leaders and cartels, who are able to charge higher prices and build their power.

And not every libertarian is an anarchist. Most, I would venture to say, are minarchists... A more limited government. Courts, national defense, and police are paid for through tax dollars. (Though I could see in a distant future insurance companies, banks, neighborhoods controlling the police in a more private fashion.

I'm not sure I follow. What research?

Life isn't simple. It is very complex.

Libertarianism recommends that the individual is best able to handle the complexity. Statists, however, believe that somehow elected officials will be able to govern the people in every aspect to maximum benefit.

It is the opposite of libertarianism, communism, that proposes that life is simple. That an all powerful state can govern our interactions with one another. Libertarianism actually accepts the fact that life is complex. It is a simple philosophy that recognizes the complex nature of 300 million (or 6 billion) people interacting with one another to their own maximum benefit, both socially and economically. A parent-type government cannot succeed in all of its endeavors to everybody's satisfaction....

__________________
"Make new friends, keep the old, one is silver and the other's gold" <---- What kind of crap was I taught as a kid?

give libertarians credit for being "conservative" and for philosophical consistency. Property rights are given highest priority. The body is the most essential "property" that we each posess. For that reason, most libertarians do not wish to make illegal first trimester abortion or drug use.

Unfortunately, I don't think libertarianism is workable. Government is absolutely necessary to ensure that freedom and democracy has an environment in which it will thrive. With poor or missing government oversight, commerce evolves into exploitative monopolies, markets become untrustworthy and unstable. Whether, we are talking about safe pharmaceuticals, clean drinking water, open media, or competent legal representation for people who can't afford a lawyer, there are hundreds of things that government does which makes freedom and justice possible. Otherwise, eventually the rich and powerful prey on those less so.

The catastrophe in New Orleans provides a few questions for libertarians: For many years there have been warnings that a direct hit from a hurricane, would be a major disaster for New Orleans. As I understand it, a libertarian would say that those who chose to live there, knew the risks and must accept the consequences. Aside from emergency assistance, how much help from government and the U.S. taxpayer is appropriate? Should it be charity donations, only?

Libertarianism is pretty nice as far as social issues go. Most libertarians believe that most drugs should be legal or decriminalized, but that doesn't mean that they support drug use. While I actually encourage use of marjuana, most social libertarians would tell you that they don't support drug use at all, but that prohibition is not an effective way to deal with that problem.

Where libertarianism runs into problems is its devotion to almost absolute capitalism. While I believe that capitalism is a superior system to socialism, I do think that capitalism should be moderate, somewhere between the European and American models.

__________________
"Nothing is true. Everything is permitted." - Hassan-i-Saba

To suggest that communism is a simplified ideology but not libertarianism is proof of ideological indoctrination. Neither would actually say "Life is simple." But the policy ideals of both systems of thought are geared toward a unilateral train of thought. There are some things individuals do better, some things governments do better, and some things that don't matter (I tend to favor leaving those things that don't matter in the private sector, but some disagree- strangely enough, many of them do believe in keeping the government out of things it could help with). To my way of thinking, every situation should be evaluated on its own peculiarities and sometimes the public sphere can help. A true libertarian would say "NO! Never!" A true populist would say "But shouldn't the government be doing this over here too..." Thankfully most of us are not "true" to any ideology.

Why? The two ideologies aren't similar. Why do both have to be either simple or complex? Because you say so?

I never said that anyway. I said that libertarianism is simple. It was life that I called complex.

There's not much to argue with the rest of the post. Nothing's supported. Here's a summary: "I think that sometimes the government is great and sometimes the individual is great. I'm gonna straddle the fence. Anybody who doesn't straddle the fence just like me is an extremist."

Got it.

__________________
"Make new friends, keep the old, one is silver and the other's gold" <---- What kind of crap was I taught as a kid?

I gather from your posts that you consider yourself a Libertarian. You have not really given me any indication how it can work in practice. As I suggested earlier, using the template of the Katrina disaster, who would take what portion of responsibility for the aid, cleanup, reconstruction etc. ? Obviously, insurance companies will pick up some of the tab but the remainder- how much burden do you place on individuals, how much on government?

Here's why.
If you "jump off the fence" you take a gamble. You trust that all issues will somehow work with your worldview. Been there-done that. Ideologues rarely learn from the flaws of their ideologies because they shape their views of reality on that philosophy rather than vice versa.
I don't accept the mythology of "riding the fence" because that term indicates that all issues are like ASCII code (0 or 1). In reality, as you acknowledged earlier, beliefs fall on a continuum. So rather than trusting in an ideology, why not find your place on each line based on your own take on the issues (from the evidence you see and compile, rather than from the preconceived notions of a given ideology)? Even scientific theories often do not cover all of reality, so why should I believe that any philosophy, ideology or religion, does?
I do make decisions about things, so I'm not a fence-rider, but my decisions do not necessarily follow a preconceived model. Personally, I don't mind you following an ideology. I'm just trying to let people know that they don't have to pick (I realize that experience teaches better than warnings, but oh well) a single political box to live in. They can build their own.