Libertarian Ideology Explored
In case you haven’t noticed, the Republican Party is dead. The fatal wound was administered inYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
In case you haven’t noticed, the Republican Party is dead. The fatal wound was administered inYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
79 comments
Of course the burning “L” is a good image for what is the modern Republican Party, but a burning cross would be better.
Of course the burning “L” is a good image for what is the modern Republican Party, but a burning cross would be better.
I’m with you. A burning cross would have been better.
A big “L” is often used as symbol for “LOSER.”
Anything that would cause shame to the pillager of the South has to be good.
+1 Great Article.
Very interesting data. And I love the porcupine “LBRTY” license plate! On a Jeep Liberty, no less.
The study made no room for the opinion shared by FITS and myself that government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all. They asked libertarians the same way they ask anyone else: “Are you for or against (this issue)?”. Intellectual libertarians actually give thought to how policies affect peoples’ lives- yes/no questions do us a disservice.
One thing they did right was to distinguish between self-proclaimed libertarians and those who provided consistent libertarian answers on the ideological part of the survey. Many of the self proclaimed libs just know how sexy and cool libertarians are. They’re trying to lay claim to a piece of this swag.
But even among the ideological libertarians, only 71% want to legalize cannabis? That seems a little low to me. Perhaps that’s why we frequently debate amongst ourselves, we have more learning to do.
The cannabis issue likely stems from older ideological “libertarians” still remembering the government’s extensive propaganda campaign against “marijuana.”
Propaganda is a hell of a drug.
Yup. Words matter. That’s why I make a conscious effort to use cannabis instead of marijuana.
you have to make a conscious effort to use cannabis?
Hah! I have to make a conscious effort not to. My employer looks for THC in my piss at least once a month. I wish they’d redirect that urinalysis money into my salary. I could buy so much weed with it.
Thats a huge one for me mash. I dont want legalization. Barbie, jeeps arent legalized. Its personal responsibility. Decriminalization and deregulation. :)
Finally, someone gets it.
Libertarian = RINO, GOP interloper, tin foil hat, etc.
If by “Republican in Name Only” you mean a libertarian that simply uses the Republican Party to get nominated for office, then yes, there are quite a few of those. Probably because the Republican Party, and the Democrat Party, put up so many electoral obstacles to prevent any competition from other parties, making it virtually impossible to even get on the ballot for office in most states, while making it easy as possible for their own candidates to get on the ballot.
It’s “crony politics” at its worst. Playing games with our electoral system to reduce competition is ten times more evil than a corporation engaging in crony capitalism.
Libertarian = Libertarian
Libertarian = NOT Republican in name, thought, word, or deed.
Republican = Abuser of tax payers, War profiteer, Home invader, Fascist, Socialist, and Racist
Democrat = Abuser of tax payers, War profiteer, Home invader, Fascist, Socialist, and Racist
For so many of us, our first encounters with the capital “L” cult was in college or late in high school where the kooky element seems to prevail. It puts one off. Personally, I think airline pilots and surgeons and such should have to be licensed, and only after documented good training and rigorous testing. I like pure food laws and safe medicine laws and don’t mind paying a bit in taxes for inspections and evaluations. But, hey, that’s just me.
I wouldn’t voluntarily allow these clueless characters to run the local dog pound, far less the national government.
One small step toward libertarianism is a willingness to forgo licensing for hair dressers, coffin makers, interior designers and other such occupations protected from competition.
There is indeed some of that and here in SC it is done mainly through LLR. Some “professions” are so small that this licensing become the basis of an exclusionary guild. You have to apprentice to one of “the chosen” to get the required experience. Not a big deal for, say, an engineer or an MD, as there are plenty of places for being an EIT or an resident intern. But for example, a “soil classifier” or a user of commercial explosives (forget the name), you have to become part of “the family.” Added to this, they get requirements to use them alone stuck into state regulations or agency practices. The soil classifiers have shamelessly intruded into areas that they, for the most part, are not trained or experienced or competent in (e.g., shallow hydrologic conditions around septic tanks or sprayfields) and managed to get excluded those who are so trained and experienced (mainly, agronomists, civil engineers, and hydrogeologists). There is much middle ground in the question of licensing.
You fundamentally misunderstand libertarianism, or simply never bothered to educate yourself. It’s no surprise you utter such nonsensical and ignorant ideas.
But here’s a newsflash: libertarians also agree that commercial pilots and surgeons should be licensed, and only after documented good training and rigorous testing. They also agree that food quality should be regulated and medicine should be safe for use. They simply disagree that big, centralized government is the most efficient means for providing any of that.
Mostly.
“They come at night…”
“…mostly” – newt
“But here’s a newsflash: libertarians also agree that ”
.
Not the ones I heard, and these were different ones in different states, and over a number of years. Libertarianism is rife with kooks.
You think Libertarians are rife with kooks? Man have you been to a GOP or DNC convention?
Good point.
.
But I try to stay clear of such places.
The LP, at least now-a-days, is getting a lot of really on-the-ball people. Hey, it is a third party, so yeah, most of the stalwarts, are REALLY stalwart. But they are quickly turning from the minority kook party into the not-so-minority party party. the Conventions in California are a blast, and when people find out how much fun Libertarians are, the whole minor party thing is over!
You hear what you want to hear, that much is plainly observed from your own words.
You read poorly. You seem to ignore the following (below) and then delude words that were not there. But it’s a common-enough dysfunction on the boards; you have lots of company.
“For so many of us, our first encounters with the capital “L” cult was in college or late in high school where the kooky element seems to prevail. It puts one off.”
“You seem to ignore the following (below) and then delude words that were not there.”
He did the same thing to me. I’m not sure if it’s reading comprehension or intentional.
Sure but then people who are early adapters are often taken for kooks.
Nearly all Libertarians agree with you on licensing. People should be certified by experts when they take on tasks of high trust.
Libertarians only suggest that if we have government do it, then we are prone to a single source of failure, and certification will be made based on politics and graft rather than actual skill or peer review. To pretend that Libertarians don’t like professional certifications is so incorrect it borders on slander. Libertarians would like to see MORE certifications instead of only an exclusive, broken and corrupted one.
It is hard to compare “consistent” Democrats and “consistent” Republicans with libertarians, as the major parties do not have consistent platforms. Each have a laundry list of aims, accreted by historical happenstance and is geared for patronage. Members tend to focus on one or two issues and forgive or ignore the rest.
Libertarian thought is based on a specific political philosophy, calling for limited government. This will never find favor with power brokers as it curtails their currency of choice.
Good shit, Walter. I love the last line; do you mind if I plagiarize?
Not at all and thanks!
They can all go to little l
The words “limited government” are meaningless unless you are willing to say how you would limit government. My experience with Teapublicans is they want government to do what they believe benefits them and nothing more. That is how they would limit government.
The Tea Party was once a non-partisan, anti-tax organization. Now it is full of immigrant haters pretending to be anti-tax.
In the United States, it means a federal government limited to it’s assigned constitutional role.
On the state level it means whatever the local voters want, consistent with the Constitution, although libertarians generally prefer a focus on protecting residents from force or fraud.
On another matter, avoiding labels such as Teapublicans would help create the impression you are interested in genuine dialog.
I have heard the Teapublicans over and over. They do not understand the Constitution, but think they do. Their definition of what is constitutional, is what they like, and what is unconstitutional is what they don’t like. They think you can understand Constitutional law by reading your handy dandy pocket Constitution or listening to Rush, Beck and the Fake News Network. Most lack the education to carry on a meaningful conversation about Constitutional law.
Albert Jay Nock, William F. Buckley Jr, Dwight Eisenhower, Barry M. Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Mises Institute, Friedrich August von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Christian Right, Conservatives, Tea Party are all names libertarian’s should know. If not they should be considered as Atheist Marxist Anarchists hell bent on being different thus their mixed bag, cafeteria style bovine sewage politics. If you think you are libertarian without a working knowledge of the former, you must be of the latter.
What a joke. There is no way Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Regan were Libertarian. There is certainly no way members of the Christian Right are Libertarians. Its pretty obvious you are no Libertarian.
Reagan talked a pretty good libertarian game, “gov’t is the problem”, etc.
But when it came down to action in office “libertarianism” was no where to be seen. He was elected with some libertarian rhetoric, but his time in office produced blown out budgets and expanded government.
He in essence did the exact opposite of what he campaigned.
His era is felt “successful” because the spending party via printed up dough, that juiced the economy on the backs of later generations via debt.
Reagan did lift trade restrictions, which contributed to greater economic activity. The economic growth wasn’t due solely to monetary policy.
“Not one of us,” is a phrase I associate with fascism more than Libertarian thought. After all, it is primarily useful when you have no reasonable or rational argument for your position. There is no perfect Libertarian. Ronald Regan had a great Libertarian mind writing speeches for him; Goldwater liked the guy; and he sold freedom regularly and well. Eisenhower, for all that he was, also identified and exposed the Military industrial complex.
You may find that if you define people by what they agree with you on more, you will be more influential with them and others. Certainly, if you define people by what you see as imperfect to you, your list of friends and allies will always be very very small, and uninteresting; and no one with an once of self-respect will ever listen to you no matter how important, or sensible your point.
“Not one of us,” is a phrase I associate with fascism more than Libertarian thought.”
That might be a personal problem.
For instance, if I’m surrounded by thieves and I desire to be among those that are not thieves, you’d have a tough time convincing me that referring to those that aren’t thieves as “not one of us” makes me a fascist.
In fact, you would get a well deserved derisive laugh directed towards you.
Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
I meant to say that only fascists have to sink to the level of using the argument; not that the argument could not be applied. The argument “not one of us” is so general that its application is meaningless. Thus it is very popular for Fascists.
Libertarians can rely on logic and truth rather than ad-hominem. Those who don’t do so and sink to the morally corrupt depths of name-calling as a tactic, usually have personality disorders. Seemingly, their underlying attraction to Libertarianism is that those whom ascribe to it are notably tolerant people… even of fools.
I think the confusion might be in the difference between classification and “name calling”. While I agree that labels in general are difficult at best and meaningless most of the time, to suggest that apply a label, like “thief” or libertarian for that matter, has its time & place.
I don’t see Terry’s application as “name calling”, but if you do-I suppose you could ask him to clarify whether it was meant as an insult or observation rather than just assuming.
edit: “to suggest that applying a label,(same), doesn’t have its time & place might be too dramatic.”
Where does the authority for classification come from that Terry can state it as fact rather than opinion?
Why would a Libertarian, in any realm, want to apply hard boundaries to mutable and changing aspects like “opinion” and “social outlook”? People are not Libertarian or not Libertarian, their actions can be in line with Libertarian philosophy or not… but to “classify” a person thusly?
To speak of people as static objects that can be classified is an irrational and unfair practice. To classify people according to your personal desires and outlook, then to speak as if your outlook were quantifiable fact, is an authoritarian tactic leveraging fraud. It is name calling.
Therefore, I do not associate people saying “not one of us” as being really that well matured in the philosophy; and frankly I judge it a likely sign that they are “into it” to hurt people more than influence them.
“Where does the authority for classification come from that Terry can state it as fact rather than opinion?”
There is no authority, it is his opinion, which he is entitled to. You said it was “name calling”. Which is, YOUR OPINION.
“Why would a Libertarian, in any realm, want to apply hard boundaries to mutable and changing aspects like “opinion” and “social outlook”?”
If it is opinion based on relevant evidence, why not? That’s aside from your own claim that libertarians “are notably tolerant people… even of fools.” By the way, would “fools” be considered “name calling” in your world?
Rather than all this supposition, why not just ask him?
Before we get into an endless and devolving cycle, let me say that you are correct (my opinion). I am stating opinion (fact).
I was very very very (hyperbolic illustration) clear that I was stating my opinion (clever conflation of opinion and fact). Terry did not offer his opinion as opinion (fact), he offered it expressed in objectively phrased language (factually a fact).
My opinion is (opinion) that this sort of behavior – stating opinion as fact – is commonly found (subjective allows for deviation) in fools and authoritarian personalities (note that I also find a lot of overlap in those two opinion anchored classifications (parenthetical opinion)).
I do not associate Libertarians as authoritarian nor as foolish (opinion). I find (opinion) that the opposite is true, that (opinion continued) most people that self-identify as Libertarian are less inclined to use the word “is” when “seems like” is a better fit.
I am Libertarian. When I joined the party, we were required to sign an oath that stated we would not use physical force to achieve political ends. That about says it all. Government is about the use of force to achieve an end.
Yes, some government is necessary. In a civil society, some government is good. Limited government serves as an regulator to provide safety and order. It just seems to me that government in all forms has been allowed to expand beyond what is necessary, beyond what is reasonable, beyond intrusive and into the realm of repressive.
You highlight well the glaring hypocrisy of capital “L” Libertarians.
“When I joined the party, we were required to sign an oath that stated we would not use physical force to achieve political ends. That about says it all. Government is about the use of force to achieve an end.
Yes, some government is necessary. In a civil society, some government is good. Limited government serves as an regulator to provide safety and order.”
So you signed something saying that you wouldn’t use physical force, yet you admit that government is “about the use of force” and say it’s necessary?
Do you even realize the hypocrisy? After you answer, maybe you can also tell us how you think government should be funded.
Is it really hypocrisy? Isn’t the goal of (L)ibertarians, upon achieving office, to reduce the power of government? The goal of all libertarians is to reduce the power of government. Some choose to attempt this task by working within the system. Are they really hypocritical? Perhaps their efforts are in vain, as it is impossible to reform government to be smaller, but I don’t see it as hypocritical.
The goal of Teanuts and LIbertarians is to reduce government to the point it only does what they believe benefits them.
Because securing liberty and natural rights only benefits a few people?
No, securing liberty and natural rights benefits everyone.
I guess that depends on your definition the word “securing” and listing of “natural rights”.
Yes…I suppose it does.
The role of government is to secure rights. Property rights are among the most basic and fundamental of natural rights. A government that grows bigger confiscates more and more property from the people to fund itself, and thus necessarily infringes the People’s property rights more and more. Shrinking government secures people’s property rights.
I notice you didn’t answer my questions, but regardless I will answer yours.
It’s very simple, government is about use of force, correct?
Do you know how hard it is to operate within government without using force?
If you get elected, but opt not to use force the first thing you must do as someone not planning to use force(libertarian, small L), is not take a salary!
How many Libertarians(captial L) are willing to do that? If you don’t, you are using force be getting paid with money confiscated from others.
Also, you can never, NOT ONCE, cast a vote in favor of any bill that uses tax money.
How many Libertarians are ready to do that one?
The hypocrisy of the whole situation is unavoidable.
My suggestion if you are a Libertarian(capital L), is you simply admit you are for government, just smaller amounts then Republicans and obviously Democrats.
Let us not hear about this stupid notion that you “would not use physical force to achieve political ends” and that you taking some stupid oath about it means anything, because clearly it doesn’t.
It means as much as the stupid Republicans taking some stupid “tax pledge” or claiming they are for “limited goverment”.
Once again this show how the Dems are just a little more honest in admitting their commie/socialist ways over the others which might make them the lesser of evils if you are ‘ok’ with voting for evil.
I answered your question.
You would really fault a politician seeking to gain office for the sole purpose of reducing the size and extent of government? Sure, it’s not the ideal solution, but it certainly beats a politician who seeks office only to expand the size and scope of government, doesn’t it?
Unfortunately, we don’t know how many (L)ibertarians are willing to not work for a salary, because not many hold office. Ron Paul did refuse his own Congressional salary, though, so it would seem that at least some (l)ibertarians would do as you suggest.
Personally, I don’t vote. But I don’t find it unreasonable to believe that some (L)ibertarians are taking action to reduce the extent of government by working from within the system, even if they believe that government is itself evil. It’s that whole Trojan Horse thing, you know.
“I answered your question.”
No, you didn’t. Tell me how government should be funded.
“You would really fault a politician seeking to gain office for the sole purpose of reducing the size and extent of government?”
If he can’t do so without taking/stealing other people’s money, yes.
“Ron Paul did refuse his own Congressional salary,”
That is incorrect, he refused his pension. He took a paycheck.
“Personally, I don’t vote.”
Why not?
You’re asking me how government should be funded? You realize I’m not the original poster, right? I am not obligated to answer all the questions you asked the original poster just because I decided to address one of your points.
But just to answer your question anyway, I don’t believe government should be funded unless it is voluntary. Which would make it not government, but just another enterprise offering its services on the market.
You are correct about Ron Paul’s salary and pension. I’d also like to highlight the fact that he returned the unused portion of his office budget in 2008, ’09, ’10, and ’11, amounting to $388,000.
I don’t vote because voting is what gives the government consent to govern. I do not wish to express my consent to be governed, so I don’t vote.
“I am not obligated to answer all the questions you asked the original poster just because I decided to address one of your points.”
I never said you were, you claimed you “answered” my questions.
“I don’t vote because voting is what gives the government consent to govern.”
Great, then don’t go throwing your support to people that run either, because then you are a giving them your consent to govern me, aside from the fact that it’s obviously hypocritical for you to do so.
Show me where I threw my support behind them? My position from the beginning of this conversation has been one of implicit support for the (L)ibertarians efforts to reduce the size of government by working within the electoral system. I don’t fault them at all for their efforts. I don’t necessarily agree with their tactics, but they are not the monsters you are making them out to be.
You answered your own initial question in a later sentence:
“My position from the beginning of this conversation has been one of implicit support”
You asked, then answered.
“I don’t necessarily agree with their tactics, but they are not the monsters you are making them out to be.”
If you don’t agree with their tactics, then don’t defend them, like you’ve done above(several times).
I’ve laid out simply & plainly the problem, specifically the inherent impossibly in joining a system of coercion in which they would have to operate without coercion.
Even the “great” Ron Paul took a salary, stolen money, in order to attempt this feat. He was not successful in in reducing government in any way, shape or form. Period.
He might have educated people a small number of people. But he did not accomplish any of the goals you deemed to be worthy of such a candidate…in essence your own criteria is impossible.
Even further, you have shown to have greater restraint than Ron Paul in that you do not implicitly endorse the corrupt system by the act of non-voting and have not chased year upon year of a substantially salary by the stolen wealth of your countrymen.
You seem to want to have your cake yet eat it too.
There are no half measures logically to the proposition of theft. You can not “half steal” something, or steal for a “greater good” and have it not still be theft.
Any attempts to get rid of the mafia by joining the mafia will fail. PERIOD. In the mean time, “playing the game” only gives those in power the perception that you’ve agreed to their rules and implicitly endorses the system. You know this deep down, based on your own actions. It’s the same reason you shouldn’t encourage “Libertarians” to try to out lie the liars or sanctify the system and its shenanigans.
Like I said, I’m not lending explicit support to the cause of Libertarians. I merely empathize with their cause. You’ve confused this empathy for explicit support. I’m not going to go out and call for the demise of the Libertarian Party. For many people, it can serve as a gateway from their statist past, leading them to the realizations that both you and I already share.
You’ve been extremely confrontational and belligerent for reasons that only you know. We share a lot of opinions on politics. There’s no reason to be rude and demeaning. If you want to argue heatedly, there are plenty of other places on the internet where you can find a bootlicking statist to engage.
BTW, Ron Paul educated a great many more than just a “few people.” Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, got their first exposure to libertarianism through Ron Paul.
“You’ve been extremely confrontational and belligerent for reasons that only you know.”
That is your perception.
“Ron Paul educated a great many more than just a “few people.”
Statistically speaking, Libertarians represent a small percentage still to this day. To think otherwise is not within reality.
Yes, your use of language affects the perception of the reader. How astute of you.
Statistically speaking, libertarians were outnumbered a hundred thousand to one just fifty years ago. Now they’re outnumbered maybe a hundred to one. Libertarianism has made tremendous strides the last decade, and Ron Paul is a big reason for that.
You want me to be an ass?
Let’s talk about “astute”:
Astute might be someone who doesn’t try to draw a distinction, like a pussy, between “explicit” and “implicit” support like it matters one iota to those seeing your support none the less.
“Astute” might just be not just spouting the platitudes of libertarianism(big or little L), but instead being able to live them consistently so you don’t look like a jackass to those who are wondering what the hell a “libertarian” of either flavor is.
“Astute” might entail not attributing lame statements to people that were never made in order to demagogue, like ” but they are not the monsters you are making them out to be”, so that you can paint your opponent as some “monster” as you put it.
Not only are you disingenuous in your arguments, but are flaccid.
There, now you are entirely justified in your proclamation that I’ve been ” been extremely confrontational and belligerent”.
So even though the rest of your arguments are weak and disingenuous, at least I was able to make one of your points sound & legitimate.
If this is the way you communicate with human beings outside the internet, it’s probably safe to assume that you don’t have much of a social life. In which case, your vehement defense of your own arguments supporting your own idealized libertarianism are for naught. You aren’t going to win many people over with that kind of hysterical language.
Peace be with you.
I only communicate with condescending pricks this way. The ones that feel they can slight people and then puss out and get indignant when it’s thrown back in their face.
I won’t bother with the fake granting of “peace” to you, but I hope you find truth more palatable from those you can verbally beat on when you are unable to do so from those you can’t.
You want me to be an ass?
Let’s talk about “astute”:
Astute might be someone who doesn’t try to draw a distinction, like a pussy, between “explicit” and “implicit” support like it matters one iota to those seeing your support none the less.
“Astute” might just be not just spouting the platitudes of libertarianism(big or little L), but instead being able to live them consistently so you don’t look like a jackass to those who are wondering what the hell a “libertarian” of either flavor is.
“Astute” might entail not attributing lame statements to people that were never made in order to demagogue, like ” but they are not the monsters you are making them out to be”, so that you can paint your opponent as some “monster” as you put it.
Not only are you disingenuous in your arguments, but are flaccid.
There, now you are entirely justified in your proclamation that I’ve been ” been extremely confrontational and belligerent”.
So even though the rest of your arguments are weak and disingenuous, at least I was able to make one of your points sound & legitimate.
The libertarian party is over,too.Run as an independent,and you might have a chance,but nothing’s going to change until the electoral college is abolished.
John Anderson for president.
If the definition of a political party were bounded by Republicans or democrats I might agree with you. A political party is defined by people coming together to team up to accomplish a social goal.
With no party, you have no team. “Independent” either means independent of the two power-brokers (Libertarians and supporters of John Anderson), or it is a misnomer for really meaning without friends.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting Instant Runoff or Ranked Voting allows voters to choose their conscience first and the lesser of two evils second. This would allow third party candidates to gain support without throwing the election to the other dominant party. As seen in Texas, a faux libritarian candidate was fielded to siphon away votes from the conservative candidate. Ranked voting is not suseptable to this political tactic.
And because of libertarian whining temper tantrum, we have been cursed with the most socialist regime in American history. Thank you EVERso.
Yes, yes, blame less than 10% of the voting population on the problems of 40+ years of overspending by both parties and GOP creep towards socialism itself over the years.
That’s perfectly reasonable.
Um, I think that the more correct thing to say is “thanks to socialists, we have been cursed with the most socialist regime…”
Gays, guns, God, evolution, home schooling, Libertarianism and a few other topics (e.g., slavery and “THE War”) seem guaranteed to get a lot of posts on Net boards. The juices begin to flow.