Replies

This is an interesting article.

Personally, I've always been confused by the myriad of extremes that fly under the same banner as libertarians (Bill Maher-socialist types as well as strict constructionists).

Lemme ask any real libertarians on this site:
What makes a true libertarian different than a Republican?
What is the difference between the so-called big "L" and small "l" Libertarians?

I've been a member of the GOP as long as I can remember. My heroes, from Hannity and Rush to Ronald W. Reagan were Republicans. Lower taxes, agressive prosecution of the war on Terror and in Iraq, and outlawing the mass slaughter of abortion are my key beliefs. I am generally satisfied with the Republican party, however a few of my views have never aligned with the Republican party platform.

These include:

1.) General disdain for the court system of the United States and the legal/law "practice" in general. Healthy Suspicion of police or anyone else who wields obscene power over fellow citizens.

2.) Opposition to the impossible, wasteful "war on drugs". An insane waste of resources and an incroachment on personal liberty. NOTE: NO, I don't personally do any illegal narcotics, not even marijuana. But if you want to smoke it, then light up. It's nobody's business.

3.) Although I personally believe that homosexuality is a sinful, ugly choice, I do not believe in the U.S. treating gays any differently than straights. Homosexuality is NOT an institutional problem, but a personal one. I don't believe in a Federal Amendment to ban homosexual marriage. Leave that up to the states (by the 10th Amendment).

4.) Censorship. There are few people I dislike, no, HATE, more than the uptight wankers at the Moral Majority who try to tell me what I may or may not view as an adult, or what I may show my family. Screw the FCC. That's not your decision.

What do you libertarians think of these positions?

Thanks for your input and have a nice day.

explodingspleen...

You are very close to being a libertarian. You differ from libertarians in that, generally speaking, libertarians believe a pregnant woman should have freedom to determine her own physical condition, and libertarians oppose foreign military adventures unless there is a direct threat from the targeted foreign nation. Libertarians generally support the "war on terror," but most believe that the war should be directed at the defined enemy of Al Queda. Most libertarians believe that there has never been any evidence that Iraq or Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the U.S., or had any link to Al-Queda.

Many libertarians believe that the threat of terrorism can be lessened by not meddling in foreign countries' political affairs.

Like most political parties, not all adherents agree with all the planks. Ron Paul, D-TX, is a good example of the general libertarian view of things.

Hope this helps.

I agree with your positions as you have stated them.

Although I consider myself a libertarian, I have grave concerns about the legal validity of Roe v. Wade. I think that the abortion issue should be left up to the states. I oppose any public funding of abortions.

I am against tax breaks for corporations that disproportionately benefit large corporations. Ideally, tax incentives would never be skewed on the basis of the size of the corporation. If this skewing is unavoidable, then in my view they should be skewed toward capital formation, i.e. small businesses.

I am more of a hard liner on taxes than most Republicans. I believe that the income tax is an affront to individual liberty. I support replacing it with a national sales tax.

In general, I'm for a small, weak federal government with the exception of the military. Unlike the paleolibertarians, I think that it's fantasy to think that we can fight Al-Qaeda and preserve individual liberty by hiring private police forces. War may be the health of the state, but tyranny is an even greater boon to the state.

This said, I'll reluctantly vote for Bush. I am a realist when it comes to voting.

The judicial branch is necessary for government to function. It is not inherently bad. The problem is activist judges, who decide what the law should be as opposed to what the law is. The Republican party seems equally committed to appointing judges who interpret the law. I do not see where that view would be inconsistent with Republicans. You can take issue with the bad choices made in appointing judges to the bench, but they were simply that. I think George Bush is doing as outstanding job in this regard by not giving in.

As far as the drug was goes, I think you'll see that change as my generation grows up. Not b/c we're liberal hippee potheads, but b/c we recognize it's silliness. By outlawing marijuana you bring a whole myriad of other problems, such as organized crime and importation of illegal guns into the country. Harsher, more addictive drugs will still be illegal like heroin.

The problem with gay marriage is the full faith and credit clause. Right now there is the Defense of Marriage Act that gives the states the option of not recognizing other states marriage laws. However, one activist judge and we're back to concern #1.

Oh, and Bill Maher is not a libertarian. It's just a neat way for him to try to say "listen to me, I am not a lunatic liberal wacko" or "I am above party politics." Example, his book "When You Ride Alone, You ride with Bin Laden." A true libertarian would not care what you do with you're own time, as long as it's not infringing on his right. A superficial link between gas consumption and funding for Bin Laden is not enough to drive a libertarian to action.