WHAT IS A LIBERTARIAN?....goin' out on a limb here, folks ;o)

9-22-02 | just me

[freebilly]

Q: What do you call it when Libertarians debate?
A: A spitting match....

[freebilly]

Q: What do you call a Communist with an SUV?
A: Senator....

[bat-boy]

Ah, I see it now, after rereading the post. My apologies.

[fporretto]

The lack of a sense of humor is a problem and a serious one, Eggs, but in my opinion it pales in comparison to the typical libertarian zealot's unwillingness to concede that he might be wrong, or that other political creeds might embody something of value.

I used to be an LP State Chair, and was active in the LP for about ten years. Though I think the fundamentals of the creed are sound, I also think it's frequently overextended, demands too much too quickly, and its "formal" organizations tend to attract fringy types whose personalities turn more conventional people off. In all probability, the LP cannot be rescued from these faults and made into a successful, influential party. However, it doesn't really need to be such for libertarian thinking to have beneficial effects on the major parties.

Persuasion of the major parties toward greater respect for individual rights and individual responsibilities requires only that their masters become convinced that ordinary people are moving in that direction. Ronald Reagan, the most successful statesman of the post-World-War-II era, called himself a "small-l-libertarian." By his personal qualities and the admiration they engendered among private citizens, he pulled the GOP in a more freedom-loving direction for several years. He built on the foundation Barry Goldwater had laid down sixteen years earlier. We could do the same with Reagan's legacy.

It thrilled me to hear Dubya, whom I admire, say, "I'm an American because I love freedom." He doesn't always act in accordance with that belief, but he's better than his alternatives, and there's hope he'll improve still further if we can take the Senate back from the Democrats. Though he's not analytically oriented, he seems to have Reagan's grasp of the essential tenets of freedom. There is much to be hopeful about -- especially if we can get libertarian ideologues to show more civility and humility in discourse, and get mainstream conservatives to stop writing us off as promoters of all kinds of vice, which we are not.

For further thoughts about conservatism and libertarianism, please see:

The Conservative - Libertarian Schism: A Harmonization

The Conservative - Libertarian Schism: Constitutionalism And Freedom

The Conservative - Libertarian Schism: Freedom And Confidence

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[freebilly]

Q: What do you call a Libertarian with a job?
A: Hooker....

[Sam Cree]

Yeah, clearly we need laws. I just think the fewer we can get away with, the better. I guess that's one of the points of contention. I do actually think too many of them can actually foster immorality.

[Cultural Jihad]

EggsAckley. No two libertarians can agree as to what libertarianism really means, on a practical level. In California we have their candidate for governor who spat upon someone live on radio, and he claims it was his "right" to do so since the radio host had cut off his microphone. They would substitute the rule of law with some vague formula of "NFNF" (no fraud no force) but then turn around and use social-Darwinism to claim that pyramid ponzi fraudulent schemes against the uneducated are all buyer-beware laissez-faire capitalism at its best. Apparently they are against fraud as long as it's initiated by the stupid, as much as they're against force as long as it's the weak oppressing the strong.

You haven't lived until you've heard their hare-brained scheme of substituting law for some 'Shun List.' If you don't like the fact that your neighbor is having marital relations with a horse, then lo! just add him to the bestial shun list, and that'll teach him how much you despise his being cruel to himself or to others! Of course we'd all have to check the shun list whenever we meet or deal with any individual. And of course there's never an explanation on who will maintain the shun list or how much of a bribe it would take to add or remove someone.

In short, libertarianism is an ideology, and we have seen the terrible results over the past 40 years whenever these ideology-oriented people get into power. Their religion is their ideology. They see the world colored by the glasses of their ideology and hence they do not see Reality, and hence all their schemes are doomed to failure and we all have to suffer as a result.

[morque2001]

I'm betting you will like this candidate, perfectly fits what I want, and most other liberty loving Individuals!

http://www.carlahowell.org/

[EggsAckley]

so GLAD you showed up. Your posts are most helpful.

[Windsong]

We, therefore, support alternatives to the War on Drugs.

Such as?

[Cultural Jihad]

>>We, therefore, support alternatives to the War on Drugs.

>Such as?

Such as splashing some cologne on these drug dealers and make-believing they are therefore respectable businessmen, and using the powers of the state to protect their heroin depots from arson ... in short, robbing people of their right to determine what kind of a society they are to live in.

[hosepipe]

Libertarian = Libertine

[ihatemyalarmclock]

Okay....THIS is the kind of thing I'm looking for. As I said, some of what libertarians believe is fine with me, it's just their intensity and lack of humor that worries me.

My confession: I was a "small l" Libertarian for years, even voting for Harry Browne in 2000. (Could've been worse; could've been Ralph Nader.)

Things changed drastically after 9-11. A few weeks later, I received a mailing (yes, I had sent them a few dollars too) from the Browne people asking me to support their own quaint "hate-America" (anti-retalitation) position that I can only describe as shocking. I returned their solicitation with a few choice words, including "Sell it to Susan Sontag." They were at least smart enough to take me off their mailing list.

But, ironically, it gave me a chance to thing some things through. I had grown most weary of engaging people in so-called debates here who are convinced that libertarians are utopian (they're largely not) and who cannot get their minds around any other concept.

I did eventually understand why libertarians elicit such a reaction: they present their case so badly.

Yet, I'd have stuck with them to the last if not for their anti-war positioning. This is so "over the top," it's breathtaking.

THINGS ARE NOT WHAT THEY WERE! You do not get a pass by being Rush Limbaugh, Noam Chomsky, or anyone in between. THEY MEAN TO KILL ALL OF US...IT IS THEIR STATED PURPOSE!

All convenient philosphies now fall by the wayside if we are to save ourselves.

Screw the Libertarians...to the extent they are listened to, they will only hasten our mass slaughter.

Call me today an American Patriot, and if it comes to philosophy, a strict Constitutionalist. Nothing more.

God Bless America, and the Free Republic people who support the greatest country in the world, a country truly worth fighting and dying for.

[bat-boy]

I assume you mean you are pro-reproductive choice

I consider myself a libertarian, yet I do not believe in so-called pro-reproductive choice.

In my opinion, the "choice" was made when the woman spread her legs. Becoming pregnant is a consequence of that choice.

All actions have consequences, and with freedom/liberty comes responsibility. Freedom/liberty without responsibility is anarchy. The action of having sex has a (possible) consequence of becoming pregnant. When that happens, it should be the responsibility of that woman to bring that baby to term. If she did not want the baby, then she should have thought about it before she spead her legs.

Anything other than that takes away from the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the child she created. If she would have used wisdom and self control, then she would have never have spead her legs in the first place IF she did not want a baby. Allowing a woman to abort a baby takes away the consequences of her poor choice.

Al least that's my opinion on the matter.

I'll have to get back with you on this a lil' later today. It's time for church.

[SalukiLawyer]

I, too, have noticed and pondered the philosophical split here on FR. First of all, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, because I agree that everyone can benefit from sincere debate.

I think some conservatives see the government's role as affirmatively making this country good through bringing its coercive power to bear in support of their sincerely-held and/or religiously-inspired ideas of right and wrong. The problem is, then, not government's power or role itself, but the ends to which it labors. If we could just elect good, moral officials, pass the right laws, things would be fine.

Other conservatives think the whole point is about government itself. Government is always held in mistrust and should be limited to the maximum extent consistent with protecting each of us from being bashed in the head by someone else. Criminal laws should be limited to offenses which threaten direct harm to someone else, for example.

The former often express more traditional ideas about right and wrong, and are cheered to see the government enforce those ideas, which occasionally justifies the latter calling them dangerous zealots. The latter often seem to owe less to traditional morality, which occasionally justifies the former calling them dope-smoking libertines.

The former's views are often passionately expressed as righteous indignation at whatever the "outrage of the week" (or day) is, with a focus on "what the government should DO." The latter see this kind of results-oriented government interventionism as dangerous, and seem willing to tolerate "bad results" in individual cases in order to make sure the government doesn't interfere with their lives.

Revealed religion seems to play a bigger part in the lives of many of the former, while the latter don't couch their arguments in religious terms and would probably think their religious beliefs, if any, are irrelevent to the discussion. I don't need to cite the name-calling that can arise from this difference since we've all seen it here before.

An extreme result of the the first sort of conservative would be the theocracy, or, more secularly, the facist state where loudspeakers and posters constantly exhort the masses to state-determined virtue. An extreme form of the second sort of conservative would be an absence of functioning government altogether and the toleration of any outrage. In both individual freedom would eventually disappear, either at the hands of the government or at the hands of one's liberated neighbor.

The former are more likely to quote scripture. The latter are more likely to smoke dope. Personally, I don't think either is likely to prove disastrous for a society if indulged in in moderation.

In this tension between the two philosophies can be found the kind of society where most of us here would want to live, I think.

[hosepipe]

Good quotes.....

[DoSomethingAboutIt]

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

[Roscoe]

Q: What do you call a pot-smoking liberal who's just been audited?

A: A Libertarian....

Bingo!

[serinde]

I think the best description of (l)ibertarians might be the "Republican Liberty Caucus" position statement.

I am registered as Republican, but have started swinging more libertarian lately. I think this statement sums up a lot of my ideas. Do you have a link for this?