A friend of mine decided they're now Libertarian...

[bobbobbins]

anyone want to give me some pros and cons of the party...seems like there are some pretty good ideas, but alot of it seems kinda nutty too. Interested to hear others thoughts on it.

[el_gato]

1. it depends on the version of Libertarian

Some are apologists for the the phoney "free market" concept that lets corporations run wild. As far as I am concerned corporations should hav e no rights.

But others are rightly focused on our loss of liberty which is the best thing about libertarianism. I wish more democratic minded people wold focus on the death of the individual's freedom in this country.

[iamjoy]

2. Pro-Choice About Everything

I think that is their motto.
I believe they opposed the war in Iraq because "the govt has no business spending our tax revenue..."

They are against public schools.
Keep your tax money and find a private school that suits your philosophy, not to a school where they are "indoctrinated"

Hate to admit it, but they are probably closest to what our Founding Fathers wanted.

[ThorsHammer]

9. Good summary; they sound good in principle but bad in practice (nt)

[w4rma]

10. Libertarians and Thomas Jefferson would have fought one another on funding

education with taxes:

"The tax which will be paid for education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up if we leave the people to ignorance." - Thomas Jefferson

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. That is a wonderful quote! n/t

[Trajan]

25. GREAT Quote ....

A lil ammo against those 'classic liberals' out there ....

[Cats Against Frist]

66. You could say, though, no

that DESPITE the public education system, that the people are still ignorant, and we do have a king and a ruling class, whose incomes are probably a thousand times more than what we spend on public education.

[leftyandproud]

31. the founders were libertarians.

I think it makes people look foolish to argue otherwise. The LP wants extremely limited government across the board. It might have worked in 1776, but not today.

[Killarney]

3. Selfish nutjobs, IMO.

At first glance, it seems like a good party because they take the best of the Reps & Dems. They want minimal taxation, minimal government, and minimal restrictions on personal freedom. They are for civil rights, privacy, freedom. On foreign policy, they are stricly isolationist.

Sounds good!

Except, they take it to the extreme.

Minimal taxation sounds good, but Libertarians want everything privatized. All private schools. All private roadways (paid via toll). etc.

They even take the individual freedoms too far. For instance, they are against the law to require parents to put babies in car seats. I mean, I completely understand being against an adult seat belt law. But against car seats for babies? WTF.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Was John Stuart Mill A Selfish Nutjob?

"over his body and mind the individual is sovereign"

[Killarney]

12. I don't know. Was he against

public schools and carseats for babies?

If so, then yes he's a selfish nutjob.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. I Am For Carseats For Babies Because THey Haven't Reached The Age Of

Consent


but a decent argument can be made that the state shouldn't have the power to compell adults to use seat belts...

[Killarney]

15. I agree with you.

[Im_Your_Huckleberry]

16. what about the cost to society from injuries and deaths in accidents?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. there's always a contingent cost to society from somebody's actions...

If a merely contingent cost is justification for state action why doesn't the government have the power to compel people to demonstrate they can afford to raise a kid before they have sex?

If a merely contingent cost is justification for state action why doesn't the government have the right to compel peple to take mandatory tests for sexually transmitted diseases before they have sex?




One can always think of reasons to infringe on somebody's else's freedoms?

[Im_Your_Huckleberry]

27. i'll try to answer

but someone smarter than me might do better.

yes, you can argue that if it's ok to require the use of safety features on a car, then it's ok to require fiscal and medical responsibility. but i think that's kind of a black and white arguement to very grey issue. at least on a gut level, i see a big difference between the two. on the one hand you're regulating the use of a modern machine. on the other hand you're talking about regulating behavior that nearly every living creature on earth engages in - sex. granted the result of failure to act responsibily in either case is a cost to sociey, but i think you have to draw a distinction between different kinds of behavior. like i said, maybe someone else can say it better, but my gut tells me that they're not the same.

[bunkerbuster1]

44. how about injuries to belted-in passengers?

not to kick this into another topic, but jeez. I won't let a passenger ride without buckling up. Not because I care about their free will; I just don't like having 150+ pounds of unsecured cargo in the cockpit.

[NuttyFluffers]

56. thank you... thank god for you.

it really is a myopic view of freedom, isn't it? "freedom for me, because my actions only have consequences for me. it's all about me!"

let's be a bit more brutal about this, and make this grey area further muddled. what do you say to the parents of a baby who buckles the child to a safety seat due to 'lack of consent,' but choose not to buckle themselves. when they die their actions have ramifications for the unconsenting baby, their actions also affect other family members who will have to realign their world to this preventable disaster, etc. now, we can carry this to extremes, but saying it affects the baby and immediate family and any victims of a 150+ pound of flying flesh and witnesses and tying up of emergency services for a preventable issue is not a stretch by any means. it just follows the natural waves made by any action.

that's why i find american political libertarianism a childish version, it is far too self-absorbed and nearsighted. i have no respect for it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. When Does The State Not Have The Right To Protect Me From Myself?

The "state" could dramatically reduce sexually transmitted diseases by scrupulouly invoking morality laws... They could require regular std screenings of all citizens and quarantine those citizens with stds...


Would the state have that right?

[bunkerbuster1]

62. Good question. I'd argue that since such STDs are typically

passed on by concenting adults aware of the risks (and this is presuming that the state has done its due diligence to make its citizens aware of those risks), then no, requiring regular std screenings of all citizens and quarantining those citizens with would not be at all warranted.

But, I'll be honest, to my mind that's more about an efficient use of public funds than about individual liberties. Frankly, it'd be a somewhat different story if I thought our tax dollars would be better used by doing the screenings and quarantining.

Problem is, we're talking about stuff that happens on publicly funded roads. There's not a lot of sex happening on publicly funded roads. Some, not much. (Parking lots, maybe.)

If you want to drive a car unbelted on your own property, or pay a private citizen to be able to drive on such a road in such a state, I guess that'd be fine and dandy with me.

[NuttyFluffers]

72. the state of Nevada already screens for STDs in its licensed prostitutes.

and that is as it should be. so your point falls.

and don't try to slippery slope this. there's some real weaknesses in the american political libertarian philosophy. it doesn't work because it has been tried in the feudal model -- really it is just another code word for the advance of feudalism. several other posters here pointed out how american political libertarianism is now a joke and been hijacked by 'anarchocapitalists.' whatever they want to call it the pill being sold has been taken before and historically has been a nightmare for millions involved.

edit: also the sex clubs here (SF) are mandated by city ordinance to provide a sanitary environment, lots of latex gloves, dental dams, condoms, and lubrication. so again, state got involved and helps the spread of disease. so again your point fails.

now if you are trying to talk about individuals in the bedroom of a private residence (which is so slippery sloping this argument) then all that has to be asked is the morality of the situation. caveat emptor should not play a part in such relations, the people you have sex with should come clean if they are infected and if not they are morally liable -- as also been noted in several law cases. so again your point fails.

notice the "me, me, me" pattern yet and how it should be curtailed?

[high density]

28. Exactly right

I think they want to turn the US into a third world country. The neocons privatized just about everything in Iraq, and look at how great that experiment is working out.

[housewolf]

29. Against car seats for babies

This is a distortion of their position.

What they are against is the REGULATION of car seats for babies, not putting babies into car seats.

It the principle of regulating people to do things, even if it's things that are good for them, that is the issue for Libertarians. It's not about any particular law in specific, it is about the principle of regulations on individual choices and activities.

[formernaderite]

65. Not quite...on a Federal level...YES.

They have less problems if local communities and states spend money, since they strongly believe in states rights. My wife is a Libertarian, and frankly we have little disagreement, I do however believe government has a role in lifting up the poorest and weakest. I'm just not sure how well individual states would do this...of course my wife argues that even with federal help, some states still do a lousy job.

[demnan]

4. My impressions

Their candidate this year for President was very intelligent and carries around a copy of the Constitution to quote from. I heard him speak in D.C. at a Voter Fraud protest rally. I respect what he has done to try to get the vote counted.

That said, I don't think the libertarians' ideas really work. They believe that the only thing government should be responsible for is defending the country. They wouldn't support education, environmental issues or social programs.

[ThorsHammer]

18. They also want govt. to protect individual rights, but that's about it, NT

[charlie]

5. Unless they vote Libertarian

it ususally means they're Republicans embarassed by the cultural wing of their party. Most people I've known that self-identify as Libertarians really aren't.

[Killarney]

11. This is very true.

I've had a bunch of people tell me they are Libetarian yet they are for the Iraq War, against gay marriage, etc. They are NOT Libertarians but I think they are embarassed to call themselves Republicans, so they say they are Libertarian without really knowing what it means.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. A libertarian is a Republican who smokes pot.

[bunkerbuster1]

45. ...who likes to screw around and/or sleep in on Sundays.

That's always my stock definition.

[BlueManDude]

49. A Libertarian is a Republican who's ashamed to admit it.

[noamnety]

8. The civil liberties part of their agenda is good

But they have a no responsibility portion of their agenda which is dangerous. Basically they seem (in my admittedly uneducated view) okay with half the population starving to death under the "it's not my problem" portion of their agenda. So if a child is born into poverty, too bad for them, we won't ensure they have even their most basic needs taken care of. If their parents can't afford a decent school, screw them.

[iamjoy]

40. I Don't Think They Say "Screw Them"

I think their attitude is, you make choices in life - and you should have the right to make your own choices, not what the government tells you. You are responsible for your life, not the government. You make bad choices, well...

Where the Libertarian argument about Your Choices/Your Responsibility falls apart is, you have some stupid crackhead chick who gets knocked up by some idiotic diseased fuck off and the baby born...The baby did not get to choose her parents. So the kid lays around in his own filth for days at a time, barely gets fed, has brain damage, never gets to go to school. Who is going to take this kid away from these losers? Never mind who is going to help the parents, they made their choices. But the kid never had a chance.

The Libertarian philosphy is closer to our Founding Fathers than any other. They believed local communities should take care of their own poor through churches, etc.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. Why don't you ask him to give you the reasons he's a Libertarian.

Then we'll proceed to explain why it's not a good idea unless you want to grow up to be a hermit on the mountain.

[Sgent]

17. A quote....

Libertarinism is the perfect form of government ... if all citizens had a 135 IQ.

I am actually a reformed libertarian. After actually working in a public health clinic, I don't believe that many people are capable of taking care of themselves in an ideal Libertarian world.

That being said, whenever I look at a position, I approach it from the Libertarian position, and advocate the absolute minimum controls to make the goal happen.

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. That is a really ignorant statement about the 135 IQ requirement.

Libertarianism might work in a monoculture, rural, farmbelt area where people are already self-sufficient for their food, but it has far too many obstacles whereever a high degree of cooperation is required for survival -- which nowadays describes every urban area as well as small town in America.

Mostly, Libertarians are people who don't like to share their toys, and don't like others to share theirs either.

[leftyandproud]

32. where is the cooperation today??

There is NONE! When you go to the grocery, you aren't "cooperating" with the bag boy...the butcher...the baker...You are exchanging value for value...your money for their services. And that grocery is COMPETING with others in the corporate world for your business. Nobody cooperated to get that steak on your table. They competed, and the people who could deliver the best steak for the best price in the fastest time are the ones who won that little contest.

Just one out of a trillion happening every day.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Is This What You Mean?

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. "

-Adam Smith

[leftyandproud]

35. yes actually

smith was a smart man...the statement is true.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. You Might Get Into Trouble Here For Saying That

-:)


Actually I think the market is the best allocator of goods and services though far from perfect and that's where government comes in....


My idea of a just society is one where there is the maximum amount of freedom consistent with order and equity...

[The Backlash Cometh]

48. Is there order and equity in Libertarianism? No. There isn't.

Look at Cheney. He's the kind of guy you'll end with up as your neighbor. I know because I live in a city full of Cheney wannabes. But they do play a mean game of golf.

[toddaa]

51. Yes, there is

Big business requires big government. Wealth inequity is the result of powerful interests holding all the money and all the guns. By making the rules so only they can win, wealth is concentrated into the hands of the authoritarians.

[The Backlash Cometh]

52. Are you suggesting that in a lawless, libertarian society that they

won't still be making all the rules? I live in a Libertarian style municipality and that's ALL they do. There's no real government here. Just good ole boys who are staunch property rights supporters, Libertarian style. And guess what? Nobody trusts one another. Because it's so individualistic in nature, nobody socializes with each other. They have nothing in common. If you have an opinion other than their kind of opinion, you have to keep it to yourself. You have to walk around like you're living in the land of the pod people because you feel that if you show one iota of emotion, they'll pounce.

One thing that Libertarians forget is that right now, there are nice people still around that will volunteer to do the crap jobs for the benefit of the community -- because not everyone is self-interested, do you hear me? NOT EVERYONE IS SELF-INTERESTED. There are/were people who actually enjoyed doing nice things for other people FOR NOTHING. They will also volunteer to do the selfless, kind, communal niceties that bring a community together.

But as we slip into our own individual interested worlds, that part of society will erode. What you'll end up with are cliques. And the only people that will show kindnesses to you are social climbers who want something from you. That's what I deal with everyday. For example, people who slip money to the sports coaches to give their kids more playing time on the field. free market, baby. Well, their daughters might get more playing time, but you can believe that life is getting unbearable for them and their daughter.

[Cats Against Frist]

55. So how's that any different from when the rich run the big government

I think just about everyone at this site would love to revel in a progressive society, where everyone is semi-productive, responsible and is charitable or giving of their time to making society better.

The point is -- how EXACTLY does big government change some of these things? If a person is willing to do a "crap job," why should they do that any more or less, depending on government? It could be argued that people are lazy, and they have a nameless, faceless, abstract, bureaucratic government doing the work that they, themselves could be doing.

Libertarianism DOES NOT mean that you have to be self-interested. It only means you're not interested in having authoritarians tell you what to do. And in my opinion, selflessness, charity and the stewarding of the community is an important part of my libertarian societal fantasy. I'm a minimalist, and I'm a libertarian...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. wnen marx discussed the "withering away of the state"

was he not discussing a liberterian utopia?

[The Backlash Cometh]

61. I'm not a communist.

Obviously, communism didn't work. But if you're comparing Communism to Libertarianism, then I'd say that you proved my point. Since I started this discussion by stating that Libetarianism would work in a mono-culture farmbelt. That describes the one place in this world where communism has worked the longest: China. Personally, I'm glad I don't live there.

The people who are becoming Libertarianist are the very kinds of people who really don't want to be bothered with their neighbor's problems. So, I think it's only fair that they should also stop complaining about people being too selfish to help their neighbors, even in times of crisis, since that's the kind of society they're creating.

[The Backlash Cometh]

60. Big Government provides safety nets. Safety nets provide a sense

of security. A sense of security allows people to move up Maslow's Hierarchy into the next stage of human development where people can become what they're meant to be: creative artists, technological wizards, teachers. And in each of those fields people can feel free to explore their kinder, gentler sides without fear of being exploited.

The only ones who will thrive in a Libertarian society are the greediest. There are three kinds of laws in society: The Religious Law; The Law of the Land (Government); and the Law of the People (Mob Rule = Libertarianism)

What I'm telling you is that nature abhors a void. Even with what we call anarchy there will be laws. But those laws will be made by the mightiest and shrewedest in the region. They come in the form of hidden rules and we're experiencing it now (at least, I am.) with the "done deal" effect in City Hall when items that come before the Commission are rubber stamped with very little public discussion. That's the kind of society Libertarians will encourage.

If this country does erode to Libertarianism (which has already happened in my Repub community) you will see less good works. As your neighbor suddenly becomes someone to distrust, because you never know their level of greed, the desire to bond with people who can't provide you with some service will decrease; the desire to volunteer to help out in a community that, by definition, is self-ish will decrease. They're nice to people they meet in their church, perhaps, but everyone else is ignored. And, that is going to be responded in kind. The level of meanness is going to rise in this country. The left will become as nasty and vindictive as the right is now.

[toddaa]

63. Stop listening to the pundits of anarcho-capitalism

Sadly, the form of libertarianism you are describing is a rather recent phenomena which has no relationship to the traditional libertarian socialism as defined by thinkers like Emma Goldman, Michael Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin. You need to stop listening to rightwing psuedo-anarchists who would trade the authoritarian rule of big government with the authoritarian rule of big business and turn your attention to libertarian socialists like Noam Chomsky and Murray Bookchin.

You can start here -> http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/sp001632/libword.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

64. Okay, did you hear what you just said?

"Sadly, the form of libertarianism you are describing is a rather recent phenomena which has no relationship to the traditional libertarian socialism "

I'm sure Karl Marx would roll over in his grave if he saw how communism was implimented. Frankly, theory is not relevant. How it's being applied is relevant. And how Libertarianism is being applied today is further eroding the cohesion of our country because, where Republicanism attracts the greedy, Libertarianism attracts the selfish.

If you want to talk about the academic merits of Libertarianism, go to a forum that attracts members of the Libertarian Party and hash it out. I'm not interested in what it should have been, I'm only interested in how it's affecting me today, and how it will affect me tomorrow.

[toddaa]

67. Anarchism v. Libertarianism

LP libertarians are laissez faire capitalists, anarchists are not. Anarchism is opposed to both capitalism and Marxism, because both are authoritarian systems. Outside the US, the word libertarian has an entirely different meaning than what the LP pushes. Go to http://www.spunk.org">Spunk's web site and learn the difference between the two. If you keep going to LP web sites, you won't get it.

If you don't buy into the political philosophy of anarchism, that's fine by me, but stop spreading LP lies that anarchism = capitalism. I am a libertarian socialist and I am fundamentally opposed to selfish greed, so please stop branding me as such.

[The Backlash Cometh]

70. Outside the U.S.?

You want me to go outside the U.S. to see your definition of "libertarian?"

NO can do. Don't have that kind of time right now. Outside the U.S. lots of things mean different things. Outside the U.S., public schools are really private school, outside the U.S., liberal means different things than here.

In a nutshell, I'm only concerned how it's being applied here in the States, and I couldn't care less how it's suppose to be applied. If you feel that the right-wingers are prostituting a pure concept, then it's for you to battle on. I hope you win, but that's not my fight, because I don't really believe that they care what it's called, nor how it's applied. It's here to stay.

[The Backlash Cometh]

47. I had this conversation with my Repub relative this weekend.

First a little background: My sister in-law is an Irish Catholic who teaches at a private Catholic school. She's Republican. She wasn't always. She bought into the right-wing hatefest which is also amplified by her husband who works for a military-industrial corporation. He hates affirmative action "and all those blacks who are taking the jobs of white men." Generally the sister-in-law tells me how much better private schools are than public schools, and when I tell her what a wonderful experience my kids are having at public school, she response, "Well, you're the only one."

So this time around, she decides to bring up in the conversation that a relative of hers who moved to a latin American country noticed that all you have to do is be a resident of that country to get a pension. AND the old people are allowed first in line to get their pension checks. ANd, Oh, why isn't it civil like that here?

It was the end of dinner and I had been good for two hours so I let her have it. "You know why. It's because nothing is communal in this country anymore. We have become a nation of rugged individualist. No one cares about anyone other than himself. What's more, no other country wants anything from America, except for our jobs." Waiter, check please!

So, what I'm saying is that the Libertarian friend shouldn't bother about changing his political affiliation because we are fast becoming a meaner, Libertarian style country. Forget courtesy and civility. That's out the door. You're going to have to be especially mean so you can ignore all those hungry people on the curb that are homeless. They will show up soon in Bush's second term. When people like me, who grew up thinking that public service was its own reward, start wondering how the hell I can just do something nice every now and then without someone screwing me over because niceness is seen as a sign of weakness, well, I would say that we're just the kind of world that Libertarians crave. Except, they shouldn't piss and moan if I direct my anger at them when they try to take over the last vestiges of communal property, because, after all, that could be my land too.

Truth is, we're already in the first stages of Libertarianism. Cheney is a western style libertarian. Free markets have been pushed long enough to bankrupt this country, and social programs were disassembled, long enough for an economic disaster to be just around the corner. If Libertarianist thought that individualism would lead to more cooperation, they're in for a big surprise.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. John Stuart Mill Had It Right...

"over his body and mind the individual is sovereign"


He distinguished between self directed acts and other directed acts...


Since we are discussing traffic safety the use of drugs is a good point to depart from...


Smoking pot in your own home is a self directed act... You are not affecting anybody but yourself but the minute you get in your car and drive it becomes an other directed act because you are endangering the lives of other motorists and pedestrians....

[BansheeDem]

53. That's not a bad way of looking at things ...

That being said, whenever I look at a position, I approach it from the Libertarian position, and advocate the absolute minimum controls to make the goal happen.


The framers of the Constitution envisioned the Federal government as the provider of national defense and international commerce; and the several states as the providers for the common good within their respective jurisdictions. The problem with the Libertarian position is that they tend to believe that the several states should not be involved (intrusive) in the lives of their citizens. To that end, unfortunately, they would leave a tremendous amount of folks fending for themselves.

[rniel]

19. depends how it's defined

there's two types as I see it:

1) those who call thereself libertarian and are basically just a mainstream conservative but want to call theirselves "libertarian"

2) those who believe in personal freedom all around. Anything you do that is not causing others harm the government should step out of your business. For instance motorcycle helmets should not be forced. Weed should not be illegal. Internet posts should not be monitored etc.

Most liberals are the #2 type

[Cats Against Frist]

39. Group one is mostly people who just don't want to pay taxes

but they're still near-fascist on conservative social institutions. They make me want to puke.

[coloradodem2005]

21. I was considered a Left Libertarian.

According to my political compass report.

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. Good on social stuff, bad on economics

-------------------------------------
Fight the fraud; Fix the system!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[Catherine Vincent]

24. I don't trust a lot of libertarians.

Because most of them are former republicans. I come to this conclusion because they bad mouth Democrats and don't say jack about republicans. Or maybe it's just the ones posting on the internet?

[toddaa]

30. I'm an anarchist, ask me anything

The problem with the word 'libertarian' is that some time in the late 60s, the Rothbard/Freidman wing of classical liberalism hijacked the word and used it as their term for the paradoxical term 'anarcho-capitalist'. Outside the US, the word 'libertarian' has an entirely different meaning. The big issue dividing Libertarians (in the LP sense) and traditional anarchists is private property.

From a historical standpoint, American libertarians are people like Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, and Henry Thoreau. None of which were "classical liberals". A good example of an American leftist libertarian today would be Noam Chomsky.

For a better explanation of anarchism -> http://www.spunk.org

[DistressedAmerican]

37. Asked some questions of a surrogate for the party

at a recent debate. He suggested that we should allow environmental concerns to remain the purview of private property (in other words, you own it, you decide how much pollution it produces). Went on to add that we shouldn't have environmental laws because people just disobey them anyway. I pointed out that by the same logic as long as people still killed other people, there was no point passing murder laws. He couldn't define what degree of government regulation he thought was appropriate.

I don't know if this guy was a good rep for the party's positions. However, if he is, it is no wonder they are so obscure.

On the plus side I talked my lifelong Iowa Republican parents into voting for their candidate over Bush. Its a good direction to push the disaffected "Old School" conservatives you meet.
DA

[Cats Against Frist]

38. Okie dokie -- I have to bite

I, too, like your friend became a libertarian in April -- as a result of the corpo-fascist, neocon, theodelusionalcrat government of the new GOP.

Libertarianism makes the best LOGICAL argument, taking into account most political philosophy, the notions of the founders of the U.S. and the ideas of personal liberty.

Where people get mixed up, is this: they try to USE libertarianism to push their own agendas that don't have to do with libertarianism at all. And then, since no one else really understands it (including people who call themselves libertarians), it just looks crazy.

It is, in fact, not crazy. I am something of a mutualist -- which comes close to the LP, which is not so "republican" as people think it is, but is actually middle-of-the-road libertarianism -- it just, unfortunately claims that group of "free marketers" that are really Republicans who apparently have some pseudointellectual restlessness that makes them reject their true home, which IS the GOP.

Then there are liberals, who hate libertarians, because they think that libertarian economic policies and GOP economic policies are the same thing. Let's get one thing straight, right here, right now: the GOP is NOT libertarian, nor in favor of the free market working everything out. The GOP is corporatist -- or corpo-fascist -- meaning that the elite have BECOME the government and use it to further the interests of the elite.

Libertarianism takes no such stance, and is in fact, against corporate personhood, and MANY, MANY GOP policies, such as using the U.S. military as a corporate arm, robbing the consumer of his or her buying power by placing restrictions on "transactions" such as euthanasia, prostitution, gambling, buying prescription drugs from Canada, FCC censorship, etc. -- all things, if the GOP were really interested in "the free market," would be left for the market to sort out.

Yes, Rothbund, Friedman and Block, mainly hijacked libertarianism and turned it into a blend of anarchocapitalism, and right-wing authoritarian social institutions. This is what you run into when you get the ugly, neo-liberal libertarians, who only believe that economics should be libertarian, and that all else should return to the "ancient ways," of patriarchal rule, conservative religious institutions, women in the home, etc. Rand gets even crazier -- and Rand devotees have to completely discount the existence of Thomas Jefferson to make a claim for Randian Objectivism in U.S. government.

Rand is not libertarian, at all, but totalitarian -- the pure objectivist philosophy is totalitarian, and some of the UGLIEST people you will ever meet subscribe to this. Jefferson, through Rousseau, believed in the idea of an altrustic and virtuous society, where people did help each other.

What it comes down to, essentially, as someone said, is private property. Anarchosyndicalists and anarchists believe that all means of production should be owned by the workers -- like communism -- it's actually libertarian communism or socialism, while anarchocapitalists believe that the government should ONLY exist for defense of the nation and interstate disputes, and a few other things.

I happen to like a blend of the two. I guess that I am something of a federalist -- and would like to see our "national conscious" de-volved, as I feel that it is one of the things that has helped wealth become so concentrated -- through mass media, the idea of the "national brand," has created the megalopolies, and is responsible for shutting down smaller operations, with more diverstity, and has effectively created an ugly homogonization of society, that has produced your shitty Wal-Mart goods, and launched acres of strip malls and identical manufactured housing in treeless cul-de-sacs, and giant cars.

One thing that people generally don't get, when they are accusing libertarians of letting "corporations run wild," is that the consumer DOES and HAS ALWAYS HAD the ability to punish people with their selectivity. In addition, the laborer has always had the ability to create better working conditions, pay, etc. not only from non-coersed union solidarity, but in conjunction with the discriminating consumer.

Is it a pipe dream? Sure. Most people are basically chimps with fancy clothes and cars that cannot be bothered to either steward democracy or look out for their own interests -- except for the interest of the consumer impulse, which is socialized early and gets its grip around most people.

But what of the 59 million idiots that voted for the Chimperor? Do I give a fuck about what happens to them? No. Do they threaten to kill us on Free Republic? Yes. Would I be sad about the people who were hurt by libertarianism, sure. But to make an omlette, one must break a few eggs.

I, myself, love the collective, the cooperative and the non-coersed union, as I am a left-leaning libertarian -- but, to some extent, it doesn't make any sense, unless you embrace our ugly Darwinian counterparts on the right, and they, in turn, embrace cultural libertinism and reject the idea of the culturally superior conservative institution (which has no basis in fact, anyway -- the rise of the individual family home has much to do with furthering consumer impulse, and little else -- filial structures have taken many forms, and no one can say that raising a child with a mom and a dad in a pre-fab home is any better than several other potential filial arrangements, i.e. the villiage, the commune, the tribe).

So, in essence, I'm for the commune, PERSONALLY, but for private property. I'm for the cooperative PERSONALLY, but I'm also for the individual entrepreneur. I'm for the NON-COERSED UNION and the RESPONSIBLE CONSUMER, but I'm also for the free market -- which, naive liberals rail upon, not realizing that it is a better alternative to the corporatism, or corpo-fascism that we've been handed by the GOP.

It's psychological, really -- adapting the notion of "personal responsibility" to everyone -- particularly the lazy, ungrateful and apathetic middle class, who are more responsible for societal ills than the ultrawealthy, any day -- also, adapting "personal responsiblity" to the stockholder, the CEO, the boss, etc. -- just because there IS libertarianism, does NOT mean it is a license to be a fucking asshole. Will human nature solve? Who knows -- but the egalitarian thing is not selling, here in Jesusland, and I'd rather see the idealism of socialist, statist government fall by the wayside than the ENTIRE Enlightenment altogether.

As for the Libertarian Party -- they have some radical solutions that I do like -- like turning over public lands to the Sierra Club, instead of letting them be farmed out to corporations by unscrupulous politicians -- and the LP also advocates for stiff damage awards for those who rob others of their life, liberty or property -- which, YES means those who pollute the water and the air, and those corporations, whose negligence leads to the death of an unsuspecting consumer.

Libertarianism is not so nefarious or confusing as people make it out to be -- but most people just don't understand it. Truly, the bulk of people who call themselves "libertarians" are either confused Republicans or anarchocapitalists, but anarchist and anarchosyndicalists are usually just better-educated-on-libertarianism libertarians, and, they share much in common.

BTW -- does anyone reading this thread want to start a LIBERTARIAN, ANARCHIST and ANARCHO-SYNDICALIST group in the group forms? With a mission statement like: "we agree with the aims of the democratic party, and believe in an altruistic society, we just feel that the way to arrive there is through either less or more de-centralized government." ?

Libertarianism is a blast -- to study and to talk about -- we could start a thread...

[iamjoy]

42. No Corporate Welfare

I think a lot of people forget Libertarians would also be against the government bailing out companies who are struggling. We could argue the merits of this. Let's not. But it is a way in which Libertarians are different than the GOP in economic/fiscal policy.

In a true free market, if a business can't hack it on its own, it would fail. In our society, the government gives them guaranteed loans.

[robre]

43. *clap* *clap* *clap*

Thank you for this.

[toddaa]

50. Private property v. personal possessions

At the risk of turning this into an anarchist theory thread, it should be noted that private property is a government inforced abstraction. Most anarchists advocate squatters rights over unused property. The distinction between individualists and collectivists is ownership of personal possessions. There is a subtle, yet important distinction between the two concepts.

[blondeatlast]

41. A very good couple-friend of ours is Libertarian.

I think of them as liberal Democrats who wnat no regulation of weapons and don't care to pay taxes, either.

Love them, but that pretty much sums up their agenda.

[cattleman22]

46. It is actually easy to find out what a Libertarian supports at the federal

level. Look in the Constitution. If the federal government is specifically given a power to excercise, then Libertarians support the federal use of that limited power. Also look at the Bill of Rights, the Libertarians support all 10 of these amendments.

[eridani]

54. My husband once said--

--Greens are what the Democrats should be and Libertarians are what the Republicans should be.

[rman]

57. "Libertarian" is an ambiguous term,

it is being claimed by both Left-wingers and Right-wingers as theirs.


"Libertarian" and "Libertarianism" have an entry in wikipedia (pointing to the same article) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
where it is noted that
"The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed. See the article's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism) for more information."

The messages on the talk page shed some light on the controversy surrounding the term "Libertarianism"/"Libertarian" - not just on wikipedia but in general:


"You need to be clear about which kind of libertarian you are talking about at all times: Classical/anarchist libertarian or capitalist/market libertarian. (...) Just saying "Libertarian" is too vague and will lead to confusion. It also ignores the history of the word libertarian- you know the people who coined and used the term for almost 90 years before it was hijacked by a completely different ideology circa 1960.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/Archive2 (see link "4 ok...")


"The Right-wing Libertarians keep messing with this thing to keep people from finding out that Libertarians don't necessarily have to subscribe to capitalism.
A left-wing libertarian would argue that a true libertarian cannot subscribe to capitalism and a market economy, because within the capitalist system there are still hierarchies and authority, they are just not in the form of a traditional nation-state. A true libertarian would oppose all authority, weather it comes from a boss, corporation, king/dictator, government, or landlord. Right-wing libertarians only oppose governments and kings/dictators, but are strangely content with all forms of authority that exist elsewhere."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarian


"There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" — recall that they (Stalinists) called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic". But why bother arguing about it?" — Noam Chomsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism#Quoted_comment_from_a_libertarian


"Big L and small l
this is a really obvious example of why small-l "libertarian" and big-L "Libertarian" MUST be distinct entries. The same problem applies to "green Party" versus "Green Party". Thankfully there we have the big-P small-p to distinguish them..."
===
"Think. How do people distinguish between capital and lower case words in speech? They use extra words to disambiguate."
===
"Personally, I think using case distinctions for meaning is stupid and wrong, because English wasn't designed that way, but I recognize that some people do use that convention, so an encyclopedia article should explain the use of the convention."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarian#Big_L_and_small_l

[toddaa]

68. LP has tainted the word

Unless you qualify it with other words like civil or socialist, you end up falling for the LP's skewed interpretation of the word. Quite a few DUers go into mindless hate filled rants at the mere mention of the word, that I wonder if should just give up calling myself a libertarian.

[Dawgs]

69. Neil Boortz is a Libertarian...

Enough said. This guy is biggest closet Republican on the radio. I have no use for any Libertarian's just because of this guy.

[robre]

73. Neil Boortz is a jerk. Not a good representative of the libertarians.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1416451#1417279

REad this post to understand

[AP]

71. If I had to reduce L'ism down to an analogy, it would be this:

D's believe that the gov't should be a fair, unbiased referee between competing interests (eg, consumer vs corporation, right vs left, employer vs employee, etc.). L's believe there should be no referee.

The end result is the same. If there's no referee, the strong always win. If the referee is biased in favor of one side, that side always wins.

Another thing to keep in mind about L'ism is that the Cato Inst -- the voice L'ism -- isn't really a voice of L'ism, in my opinion. They're the voice of corporate interests and they try to force L'ism into something that always works for corporations.