Libertarianism

[AUTUmike 79]

Let's talk libertarianism. I know there are quite a few libertarians on this forum, so I wanted a place to debate the basic tenants of this ideology. Is it a viable political ideology in the US?

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I'm a Libertarian, however, I'm too busy working and paying taxes (supporting other folks) to discuss the subject.

[AUTUmike 79]

I'm a Libertarian, however, I'm too busy working and paying taxes (supporting other folks) to discuss the subject.

Alright...well...thanks for taking the time.

[AURaptor 1,128]

I fear there are too many entitlement minded people, or uneducated individuals out there for it to ever make much headway.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I'm not even sure what a Libertarian is but after watching Dems. and Repubs. in action I think I'm becoming one.

[autigeremt 6,776]

Libertarianism is growing in the US but I'm not sure you can call it a set in stone ideology. Even we have splits within our ranks but we all agree on less government, adherence to current law and the COTUS, a push for real accountability, individual freedom and responsibility, minimal taxation as it relates to the basic tenant of the Federal Government, state sovereignty, etc.

There's a range of ideology within the libertarian movement but the basic belief is that the individual should have as much liberty as possible within the rule of law.

[icanthearyou 4,464]

Two things I really like about most Libertarians:

When they talk about limited government, they are more concerned with limiting the government's power than it's size.

Libertarian ideology doesn't seek to impose it's will on everyone else. They have too much respect liberty and freedom.

[autigeremt 6,776]

Two things I really like about most Libertarians:

When they talk about limited government, they are more concerned with limiting the government's power than it's size.

Libertarian ideology doesn't seek to impose it's will on everyone else. They have too much respect liberty and freedom.

Well stated.

[AUTUmike 79]

I fear there are too many entitlement minded people, or uneducated individuals out there for it to ever make much headway.

I'm highly educated, but libertarianism doesn't appeal to me because of its absolutism and lack of imagination. In general, IMO it is a frameork that's cute to study in a freshman philosophy class, but it can't reasonably be applied to US politics.

With that being said, I think libertarianism has elements that appeal to both parties--which makes it pretty interesting to consider.

[AUTUmike 79]

Libertarianism is growing in the US but I'm not sure you can call it a set in stone ideology. Even we have splits within our ranks but we all agree on less government, adherence to current law and the COTUS, a push for real accountability, individual freedom and responsibility, minimal taxation as it relates to the basic tenant of the Federal Government, state sovereignty, etc.

There's a range of ideology within the libertarian movement but the basic belief is that the individual should have as much liberty as possible within the rule of law.

How would you categorize the splits in the ranks of libertarianism? I find (just from my personal experiences) that many people calling themselves libertarians are really just anti-government (not anarchy, just anti-government involvement in all things). If possible, I'd love to see you categorize some of the different factions with examples of how they view various issues differently--just for clarity. TIA

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

Libertarians tend to believe in a fiscal conservatism also and really don't care what you want to do on the social side (as much) just as long as you don't affect others with your choices or ask us to pay for it. For example, I don't care if you want to smoke pot, snort coke or whatever, I really don't but when you are down don't ask me to pay for your medical treatment, rehab, etc. Also, do not do this and drive...Limited government is up there...government waste is horrendous along with the current crop of bureaucrats, they only look out for their best interest and not the peoples. If this wasn't the case they would not be afraid of curbing lobbies political donations etc...they would look out create laws that were in the best interest for America. Currently that isn't happening....for instance most of the benefactors of the farm subsidies live around DC...who knew that there so many farmers living within 100 miles of DC

[AUTUmike 79]

Libertarians tend to believe in a fiscal conservatism also and really don't care what you want to do on the social side (as much) just as long as you don't affect others with your choices or ask us to pay for it. For example, I don't care if you want to smoke pot, snort coke or whatever, I really don't but when you are down don't ask me to pay for your medical treatment, rehab, etc. Also, do not do this and drive...Limited government is up there...government waste is horrendous along with the current crop of bureaucrats, they only look out for their best interest and not the peoples. If this wasn't the case they would not be afraid of curbing lobbies political donations etc...they would look out create laws that were in the best interest for America. Currently that isn't happening....for instance most of the benefactors of the farm subsidies live around DC...who knew that there so many farmers living within 100 miles of DC

So basically it's cool to snort a little coke while burning an American flag and sporting an uzi...but you better not drive while doing that or it wouldn't be a victimless crime (although if your were to drive at that point, it'd be fine to not wear your seatbelt)?

I'm kidding, obviously.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

Libertarians tend to believe in a fiscal conservatism also and really don't care what you want to do on the social side (as much) just as long as you don't affect others with your choices or ask us to pay for it. For example, I don't care if you want to smoke pot, snort coke or whatever, I really don't but when you are down don't ask me to pay for your medical treatment, rehab, etc. Also, do not do this and drive...Limited government is up there...government waste is horrendous along with the current crop of bureaucrats, they only look out for their best interest and not the peoples. If this wasn't the case they would not be afraid of curbing lobbies political donations etc...they would look out create laws that were in the best interest for America. Currently that isn't happening....for instance most of the benefactors of the farm subsidies live around DC...who knew that there so many farmers living within 100 miles of DC

So basically it's cool to snort a little coke while burning an American flag and sporting an uzi...but you better not drive while doing that or it wouldn't be a victimless crime (although if your were to drive at that point, it'd be fine to not wear your seatbelt)?

I'm kidding, obviously.

Dude, I don't care if you were wearing a tutu driving down the road backward so long as you don't mess with other folks nor cause a crash...I don't like the burning of the flag though...but I have served almost 26 years to support your right to do it...even though I don't like what people do sometimes...I am not one to judge...I look at it this way...if you are going to do that kind of crap...well you aren't going to live that long and may not keep that good job long...I know you are kidding but who am I to say that people need to do things my way? Really so long as you don't infringe on others and if you do it in your own property then really does it matter? If we legalized drugs we could tax the crap out of it. Some of those taxes could go to pay for rehab for folks that go off the deep end by becoming very addicted...the rest of that tax money could be put to good use for other things like infrastructure, etc...but the problem is that when congress sees $$$ they think of entitlement programs or something that will line their pockets in the long run...which is terribly bad for the folks. Just take a look at the war on poverty...in the 50 years it has been around has it worked? No..why? because government cannot fix these things...they want to take my money and give it folks who have never worked for it...Am I saying that we should not help those that really cannot help themselves? No...we are a society that does these things but we all know that you shouldn't be able to take that money meant for food and be able to spend it in a strip club or casino which can happen now...it is appalling...and the amount of fraud in these systems is just incredible...oh and the deficit...I mean come on...none of us would survive living like that in our household....

[autigeremt 6,776]

Libertarianism is growing in the US but I'm not sure you can call it a set in stone ideology. Even we have splits within our ranks but we all agree on less government, adherence to current law and the COTUS, a push for real accountability, individual freedom and responsibility, minimal taxation as it relates to the basic tenant of the Federal Government, state sovereignty, etc.

There's a range of ideology within the libertarian movement but the basic belief is that the individual should have as much liberty as possible within the rule of law.

How would you categorize the splits in the ranks of libertarianism? I find (just from my personal experiences) that many people calling themselves libertarians are really just anti-government (not anarchy, just anti-government involvement in all things). If possible, I'd love to see you categorize some of the different factions with examples of how they view various issues differently--just for clarity. TIA

There's the hard core, past generations libertarian that tends to fit the characteristics you listed. Less government, no wars, less taxes, individual liberty, etc.

There's also a new generation libertarian who definitely wants less intrusive government, fiscal responsibility, and military restraint but also understands that you can't just flip a switch and make it happen overnight. It wants measures implemented that will turn the country in the direction of a Republic but understands you can't do it in 1 or 2 terms of leadership. We want the freedoms of the individual put in its proper place.

It's not the simpleton mentality that some like to paint, but it's definitely more consistent than liberalism or conservatism. I don't think groups should force individuals to conform to their ideology beyond common sense public safety and law. With a corrupt nation like ours I'm not sure it's even possible anymore but it won't stop me from believing in it.

[homersapien 11,513]

Libertarianism is growing in the US but I'm not sure you can call it a set in stone ideology. Even we have splits within our ranks but we all agree on less government, adherence to current law and the COTUS, a push for real accountability, individual freedom and responsibility, minimal taxation as it relates to the basic tenant of the Federal Government, state sovereignty, etc.

There's a range of ideology within the libertarian movement but the basic belief is that the individual should have as much liberty as possible within the rule of law.

How would you categorize the splits in the ranks of libertarianism? I find (just from my personal experiences) that many people calling themselves libertarians are really just anti-government (not anarchy, just anti-government involvement in all things). If possible, I'd love to see you categorize some of the different factions with examples of how they view various issues differently--just for clarity. TIA

That's good. It occurs to me that Libertarianism :Anarchy is equivalent to Agnosticism : Atheism.

Anyway, I sense selfishness masked with independence in many professed libertarians. IMO, humans require community and there's no natural limit to the level (of scale) that community can occur.

[AUTUmike 79]

Libertarianism is growing in the US but I'm not sure you can call it a set in stone ideology. Even we have splits within our ranks but we all agree on less government, adherence to current law and the COTUS, a push for real accountability, individual freedom and responsibility, minimal taxation as it relates to the basic tenant of the Federal Government, state sovereignty, etc.

There's a range of ideology within the libertarian movement but the basic belief is that the individual should have as much liberty as possible within the rule of law.

How would you categorize the splits in the ranks of libertarianism? I find (just from my personal experiences) that many people calling themselves libertarians are really just anti-government (not anarchy, just anti-government involvement in all things). If possible, I'd love to see you categorize some of the different factions with examples of how they view various issues differently--just for clarity. TIA

There's the hard core, past generations libertarian that tends to fit the characteristics you listed. Less government, no wars, less taxes, individual liberty, etc.

There's also a new generation libertarian who definitely wants less intrusive government, fiscal responsibility, and military restraint but also understands that you can't just flip a switch and make it happen overnight. It wants measures implemented that will turn the country in the direction of a Republic but understands you can't do it in 1 or 2 terms of leadership. We want the freedoms of the individual put in its proper place.

It's not the simpleton mentality that some like to paint, but it's definitely more consistent than liberalism or conservatism. I don't think groups should force individuals to conform to their ideology beyond common sense public safety and law. With a corrupt nation like ours I'm not sure it's even possible anymore but it won't stop me from believing in it.

In my mind there are true libertarians (absolute in all phases); social libertarians, and fiscal libertarians. I seem to run across many more self-professed libertarians that are fiscal libertarians but are staunchly agasint civil liberties on the scale of classical libertarianism. What that often makes me wonder is how these individuals differentiate themselves from republicans. I realize that two individuals can arrive at the same conclusion based on different logic and therefore it becomes a more general epistemological issue, but it has always puzzled me.

[AUTUmike 79]

Libertarianism is growing in the US but I'm not sure you can call it a set in stone ideology. Even we have splits within our ranks but we all agree on less government, adherence to current law and the COTUS, a push for real accountability, individual freedom and responsibility, minimal taxation as it relates to the basic tenant of the Federal Government, state sovereignty, etc.

There's a range of ideology within the libertarian movement but the basic belief is that the individual should have as much liberty as possible within the rule of law.

How would you categorize the splits in the ranks of libertarianism? I find (just from my personal experiences) that many people calling themselves libertarians are really just anti-government (not anarchy, just anti-government involvement in all things). If possible, I'd love to see you categorize some of the different factions with examples of how they view various issues differently--just for clarity. TIA

That's good. It occurs to me that Libertarianism :Anarchy is equivalent to Agnosticism : Atheism.

Anyway, I sense selfishness masked with independence in many professed libertarians. IMO, humans require community and there's no natural limit to the level (of scale) that community can occur.

Good analogy, that was the point for which I was reaching. But I did kinda loosen the ketchup bottle

[AUTUmike 79]

Libertarians tend to believe in a fiscal conservatism also and really don't care what you want to do on the social side (as much) just as long as you don't affect others with your choices or ask us to pay for it. For example, I don't care if you want to smoke pot, snort coke or whatever, I really don't but when you are down don't ask me to pay for your medical treatment, rehab, etc. Also, do not do this and drive...Limited government is up there...government waste is horrendous along with the current crop of bureaucrats, they only look out for their best interest and not the peoples. If this wasn't the case they would not be afraid of curbing lobbies political donations etc...they would look out create laws that were in the best interest for America. Currently that isn't happening....for instance most of the benefactors of the farm subsidies live around DC...who knew that there so many farmers living within 100 miles of DC

So basically it's cool to snort a little coke while burning an American flag and sporting an uzi...but you better not drive while doing that or it wouldn't be a victimless crime (although if your were to drive at that point, it'd be fine to not wear your seatbelt)?

I'm kidding, obviously.

Dude, I don't care if you were wearing a tutu driving down the road backward so long as you don't mess with other folks nor cause a crash...I don't like the burning of the flag though...but I have served almost 26 years to support your right to do it...even though I don't like what people do sometimes...I am not one to judge...I look at it this way...if you are going to do that kind of crap...well you aren't going to live that long and may not keep that good job long...I know you are kidding but who am I to say that people need to do things my way? Really so long as you don't infringe on others and if you do it in your own property then really does it matter? If we legalized drugs we could tax the crap out of it. Some of those taxes could go to pay for rehab for folks that go off the deep end by becoming very addicted...the rest of that tax money could be put to good use for other things like infrastructure, etc...but the problem is that when congress sees $$$ they think of entitlement programs or something that will line their pockets in the long run...which is terribly bad for the folks. Just take a look at the war on poverty...in the 50 years it has been around has it worked? No..why? because government cannot fix these things...they want to take my money and give it folks who have never worked for it...Am I saying that we should not help those that really cannot help themselves? No...we are a society that does these things but we all know that you shouldn't be able to take that money meant for food and be able to spend it in a strip club or casino which can happen now...it is appalling...and the amount of fraud in these systems is just incredible...oh and the deficit...I mean come on...none of us would survive living like that in our household....

Yeah I don't disagree with some of your points, but some of the others I would object to strongly. But I guess that is what makes libertarianism unique; it has aspects to it which appeals to both liberals and conservatives but it is arriving at those respective points of consensus, not from a moderate/center postion, but from the core of both liberalism and conservatism.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Give it 20 years, and I think it will be a viable 3rd party if one of the big two doesn't swallow it first. My age cohort is (in general) more pro-choice and much much more accepting of same-sex relationships, which dovetails nicely into the Libertarian "Keep the government out of my life" idea. I don't know if it's just my cohort, but I also see a lot of people my age (we'll say mid 20s to mid 30s) are really backing away quickly from the populist bent we were on when President Obama was elected the first time. After 5 years of the same old stuff, they're quickly becoming either apathetic or openly hostile.

I think we should come up with a name for what happened. I like the "Grand Disillusionment."

[autigeremt 6,776]

I contend that community is best served if individuals accept their roles and responsibilities and live them out. In other words, if the majority (not all is possible in humanity) took on personal responsibility as their focus the community would be better off than a community who looks to a central authority for responsibility.

I kind of like the "Grand Disillusionment" label.

[AUTUmike 79]

Give it 20 years, and I think it will be a viable 3rd party if one of the big two doesn't swallow it first. My age cohort is (in general) more pro-choice and much much more accepting of same-sex relationships, which dovetails nicely into the Libertarian "Keep the government out of my life" idea. I don't know if it's just my cohort, but I also see a lot of people my age (we'll say mid 20s to mid 30s) are really backing away quickly from the populist bent we were on when President Obama was elected the first time. After 5 years of the same old stuff, they're quickly becoming either apathetic or openly hostile.

I think we should come up with a name for what happened. I like the "Grand Disillusionment."

Sounds like I'm around the same age as you and I agree with your assessment that many of our generation have a framework that would allow for Libertarianism to profit. However, I would be shocked if the Libertarian Party actually competed with Dems and Republicans. As I think I mentioned before, the fact that libertarianism draws support from the outer ranges of both liberalism and conservatism make the electoral math pretty difficult IMO.

I also think that while many people support the idea of less government intrusion into our lives, the way it is packaged as an absolute aversion to that scares some people off. So IMO for libertarians to draw support necessary to compete in elections they will have to relax some of their viewpoints (just like Repubs and Dems do each [non-primary] election). However, because of their ideological angle I think that a relaxation of libertarianism would simply mean less differentiation between them and the traditional parties--quite an interesting dynamic.

[autigeremt 6,776]

Give it 20 years, and I think it will be a viable 3rd party if one of the big two doesn't swallow it first. My age cohort is (in general) more pro-choice and much much more accepting of same-sex relationships, which dovetails nicely into the Libertarian "Keep the government out of my life" idea. I don't know if it's just my cohort, but I also see a lot of people my age (we'll say mid 20s to mid 30s) are really backing away quickly from the populist bent we were on when President Obama was elected the first time. After 5 years of the same old stuff, they're quickly becoming either apathetic or openly hostile.

I think we should come up with a name for what happened. I like the "Grand Disillusionment."

Sounds like I'm around the same age as you and I agree with your assessment that many of our generation have a framework that would allow for Libertarianism to profit. However, I would be shocked if the Libertarian Party actually competed with Dems and Republicans. As I think I mentioned before, the fact that libertarianism draws support from the outer ranges of both liberalism and conservatism make the electoral math pretty difficult IMO.

I also think that while many people support the idea of less government intrusion into our lives, the way it is packaged as an absolute aversion to that scares some people off. So IMO for libertarians to draw support necessary to compete in elections they will have to relax some of their viewpoints (just like Repubs and Dems do each [non-primary] election). However, because of their ideological angle I think that a relaxation of libertarianism would simply mean less differentiation between them and the traditional parties--quite an interesting dynamic.

It is. That's why we are often labeled as radicals. In fact, we actually hold to the values of the constitution despite its so called "faults". I tend to be between Rand Paul and Dennis K. I think government has taken a huge step backwards and part of the reason is crony capitalism.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

Libertarians tend to believe in a fiscal conservatism also and really don't care what you want to do on the social side (as much) just as long as you don't affect others with your choices or ask us to pay for it. For example, I don't care if you want to smoke pot, snort coke or whatever, I really don't but when you are down don't ask me to pay for your medical treatment, rehab, etc. Also, do not do this and drive...Limited government is up there...government waste is horrendous along with the current crop of bureaucrats, they only look out for their best interest and not the peoples. If this wasn't the case they would not be afraid of curbing lobbies political donations etc...they would look out create laws that were in the best interest for America. Currently that isn't happening....for instance most of the benefactors of the farm subsidies live around DC...who knew that there so many farmers living within 100 miles of DC

So basically it's cool to snort a little coke while burning an American flag and sporting an uzi...but you better not drive while doing that or it wouldn't be a victimless crime (although if your were to drive at that point, it'd be fine to not wear your seatbelt)?

I'm kidding, obviously.

Dude, I don't care if you were wearing a tutu driving down the road backward so long as you don't mess with other folks nor cause a crash...I don't like the burning of the flag though...but I have served almost 26 years to support your right to do it...even though I don't like what people do sometimes...I am not one to judge...I look at it this way...if you are going to do that kind of crap...well you aren't going to live that long and may not keep that good job long...I know you are kidding but who am I to say that people need to do things my way? Really so long as you don't infringe on others and if you do it in your own property then really does it matter? If we legalized drugs we could tax the crap out of it. Some of those taxes could go to pay for rehab for folks that go off the deep end by becoming very addicted...the rest of that tax money could be put to good use for other things like infrastructure, etc...but the problem is that when congress sees $$$ they think of entitlement programs or something that will line their pockets in the long run...which is terribly bad for the folks. Just take a look at the war on poverty...in the 50 years it has been around has it worked? No..why? because government cannot fix these things...they want to take my money and give it folks who have never worked for it...Am I saying that we should not help those that really cannot help themselves? No...we are a society that does these things but we all know that you shouldn't be able to take that money meant for food and be able to spend it in a strip club or casino which can happen now...it is appalling...and the amount of fraud in these systems is just incredible...oh and the deficit...I mean come on...none of us would survive living like that in our household....

Yeah I don't disagree with some of your points, but some of the others I would object to strongly. But I guess that is what makes libertarianism unique; it has aspects to it which appeals to both liberals and conservatives but it is arriving at those respective points of consensus, not from a moderate/center postion, but from the core of both liberalism and conservatism.

I can understand that you would object to some of my points. I personally have never taken illegal drugs or do most of those things, I know others do and want to do it. I am more of a consequences kind of guy. Meaning you need to take responsibility for your actions and not rely on the government to help you clean up your mess. There are many charities that will help people out if government wasn't involved as it used to be. I believe in God but don't want it pushed on people because we all have different beliefs...I do want to follow the constitution and don't believe in interpretation like so many liberals believe. I am for certain regulations but we over regulate to push political agendas and that is wrong. We either are a country with laws or when we selectively decide to enforce certain laws then we are breaking down as a society and that is wrong. As a society we have to get along. I believe in a strong military but they should not be used as a social experiment nor to push a political agenda but should be used for the greater good of our country.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

I do want to follow the constitution and don't believe in interpretation like so many liberals believe.

Everything else is definitely your opinion, and I have no problems with any of it.

However, this part of your quote is actually a really big misunderstanding about how Common Law as a system works, which is by building jurisprudence based on previous jurisprudence. The US constitution is the baseline we started from, but that doesn't mean that it is the end result. And this is coming from a staunch bill-of-rights advocate. (hell, i'm a filthy liberal, and I'll defend the 2nd amendment as ardently as I do any of the others.)

This is exactly the same thing I brought up in the the thread about consensus in science. The entire purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret things based on the constitution and the decisions made regarding it. If we couldn't build on past cases, then we literally would have to start from the beginning every single time, and there's a strong chance that there would be a lot of variation in the decisions. The end result ends up being capricious and arbitrary because every new decision is based on a review that stands separate from all the others.

The other option as a system of law is Civil Law, which is when the entire code is set forth in writing. There is no leeway in it whatsoever. The problem is, because the system is designed to answer all questions at once with no interpretation, the laws are necessarily detailed and restrictive. It's actually a system that results in MORE government involvement and regulation, not less.

[autigeremt 6,776]

I do want to follow the constitution and don't believe in interpretation like so many liberals believe.

Everything else is definitely your opinion, and I have no problems with any of it.

However, this part of your quote is actually a really big misunderstanding about how Common Law as a system works, which is by building jurisprudence based on previous jurisprudence. The US constitution is the baseline we started from, but that doesn't mean that it is the end result. And this is coming from a staunch bill-of-rights advocate. (hell, i'm a filthy liberal, and I'll defend the 2nd amendment as ardently as I do any of the others.)

This is exactly the same thing I brought up in the the thread about consensus in science. The entire purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret things based on the constitution and the decisions made regarding it. If we couldn't build on past cases, then we literally would have to start from the beginning every single time, and there's a strong chance that there would be a lot of variation in the decisions. The end result ends up being capricious and arbitrary because every new decision is based on a review that stands separate from all the others.

The other option as a system of law is Civil Law, which is when the entire code is set forth in writing. There is no leeway in it whatsoever. The problem is, because the system is designed to answer all questions at once with no interpretation, the laws are necessarily detailed and restrictive. It's actually a system that results in MORE government involvement and regulation, not less.

You're not a filthy liberal. Just a libertarian whose afraid to disappoint someone close to you by calling yourself a liberal. LOL!!!!

What happens when judicial law is reset or misinterpreted? Do we continue to accept a flawed, previous decision moving forward? Just a question for the sake of curiosity.