NationStates Jolt Archive

Surely their philosophy of small government, and both economic freedom and personal freedom is closest to the Founding Fathers of the USA?

Because we do not have a strong base. We constantly try to win the number one spot without winning seats in congress. We need mayors and city councilmen/women and start from there...not the top.

I wish there were more Libertarians in this country

Because we do not have a strong base. We constantly try to win the number one spot without winning seats in congress. We need mayors and city councilmen/women and start from there...not the top.
I think Libertarians run into an ideological roadblock at the lower levels. City and county governments are all about government control and "giving people stuff." At that level, people want the city/county to repair streets, keep the water, electricity and gas flowing, keep the schools open. They find it hard to accept Libertarian ideas such as school choice and privatization of services. Some people are downright frightened by those ideas. The city has always done all these things for them, and now the Libertarians want to "take our services away."

Libertarians may be for what the Founding Fathers intended, but there are far too many authoritarians in this country for the Libertarians to catch on. Libertarians favor abolishing sex laws when many Ameericans view sex solely as a tool for procreation, they would advocate ending discrimination against gays when Americans are banning gay marriage left and right, they would allow TV stations to air whatever they want despite Americans' outrage at last year's Super Bowl, and they would likely minimize the public sector as much as possible and allow discrimination in employment and schools when Americans are blindly PC and judge even slight actions to be blatantly racist or sexist. If they ran on a platform of tax cuts and more tax cuts, they might gain more of a following, though; if there's one thing 90% of Americans have in common, it's that they hate to pay taxes.

I wish there were more Libertarians in this country

Me too. :(

I think it's also due to the fact that, at some level, Libertarian ideals about what government is supposed to do are inherently flawed. I'm right there with the Libertarians on personal matters--the government needs to stay out of peoples' personal lives completely. But when it comes to their philosophies on business regulation and infrastructure building, they're just way off the map, and even if most people don't understand why they are, they somehow still manage to understand it subliminally.

Libertarians tend too be too idealogical in their beliefs. It really doesn't appeal to the masses. Most people believe the government does have some responsibility to the people and vice versa.

they would allow TV stations to air whatever they want despite Americans' outrage at last year's Super Bowl,
While I believe children should be able to grow up w/o being exposed to society's less appealing side, I feel like the government should just stay out of regulating/censoring, TV, movies, anime, the Internet, or any other media. If ppl are so afraid of it they can just get a private corporation censor out all the stuff they dont want (then again I personally dont like this cause for all we know said corporation may be including their corporate agenda into the censoring)

and allow discrimination in employment and schools
WTF I WOULD NOT ALLOW DESCRIMINATION!!!

The Libertarian Party's Platform (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/)

:confused: OK, I'm confused. I always thought libertarians were more extreeme than the Greens, but this platform almost seems reasonable. I'm not sure I agree with all the planks, but even the ones I don't agree with seem reasonable.

My only question with the platform is the notion that somehow not choosing is a greater good than choosing. Not choosing is in fact another choice, one chooses not to choose. This can be seen by the following plank in the platform.

Individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.

By government "keeping out of the question" haven't they in fact entered into the question?

But compared to the Green Party (http://www.gp.org/platform.html) , this party's platform is very reasonable.

Surely their philosophy of small government, and both economic freedom and personal freedom is closest to the Founding Fathers of the USA?
Because we don't live in the world of 1776 any more? I'm not inherently anti-Founding Fathers, I just think it's silly to believe that we can live completely by the political ideology of the Founding Fathers.

Libertarians are almost too conservative for Joe Sixpack (average citizen) to follow, Joe likes all the government control and all the programs that the Feds pay for. Libertarians want the government to reduce in size and stop paying for all the socialist programs, such as social security, welfare, mediscare, I mean medicare, and all the others.

Libertarianism is too advanced for religious fundies that want to force morals on us. That's why the Republican party is so powerful.

Only problem I have with the Libertarian platform is it's stance on kids. They are the property of the parents and aren't citizens according to the platform.

Well?

Only basing it on my up front experiences with Liberts.

In no particular order:

1) Supreme Arogence. Anybody that argues obbiously doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. They don't see the whole picture, etc. etc.

2) Lack of compassion. Some people fall on hard times. But to them, you are not helping them by giving them handouts. For example. Welfare only creates welfare queens.

3) States rights should overide the Federals. For some reason they view the state goverments as more honest then the feds. MInd you the feds are not pure but the state Goverments are no better.

4) I, me, and mine seems to be the main force on many issues.

5) Environmental (primatoligist hat on): Business should never be curtailed.

6) Lack of compassion: on the matter of execuative fraud and stock fraud, I have heard more then one basically say. "People should take care of themselves and not expect the goverment to do it."

7) Witdrawing from the world: "We aren't the worlds policman" and yet "We are helping the Iraqis....."

8) The founding fathers (in particular Jefferson) were really Libertarians. Yet when offered historical arguments. "Historians can't tell you what the man was thinking."

9) Very Judgemental.

10) Rapes sheep and little boys.

Ok the last one was obvious BS but overall the ones I found are overly judgemental and overly selfish.

I had one(an ex friend) who once remarked on JFK's speech "Ask not...." was his way of making sure the people stay with big goverment and the 2 party system.

Disclaimer: This is not a judgement of the whole movement as I have not looked into it. The people I have met kind of gives the impression that it is not worth it.....

Actually .... it's because Libertarians have absolutely *zero* compassion.

Surely their philosophy of small government, and both economic freedom and personal freedom is closest to the Founding Fathers of the USA?
because they are nuts

I agree with them on alot except for the foreign policy. The foregin policy needs to be more imperialistic and more defence based.

I must say, the Libertarian economic platform frightens me somewhat. It seems to me that, in that respect, they stand to the right of even the Republicans. I agree with removing some barriers to individual entrepeneurship (sp?), but I don't trust corporations to behave responsibly without the government telling them too. And privatizing public services? Personally, I'd rather not have the police owe loyalty to some corporation.

as more cities grow and the metropolitan influence outparces those of conservatives, liberals will be much more popular. a large reason they are not as popular is because of other systems that make the smaller towns and conservative areas be heard equally nationally or locally. if the electoral system, for example, did not exist, liberals would be in power more often because the cities have more diversity and open-mindess toward the new, thus choosing the more liberal candidate, unless there are other reasons the conservative should be chosen.

i'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it might have something to do with the oddball things that they have to hold up as being 'libertarian' according to their own premises. children as property to be sold on the open market, voluntary slavery, ridiculously high levels of social and economic inequality, etc. and the fact that when they aren't being 'vulgar libertarian' corporate apologists and hacks, they mainly talk about legalizing drugs. all of this lends them quite nicely to being patronizingly demonized and generally derided.

oh yeah, and the fact that most people are social democrats, whether they know it or not, doesn't help matters.

Here is a quick test of where you are politically. You maybe surprised:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I must say, the Libertarian economic platform frightens me somewhat. It seems to me that, in that respect, they stand to the right of even the Republicans. I agree with removing some barriers to individual entrepeneurship (sp?), but I don't trust corporations to behave responsibly without the government telling them too. And privatizing public services? Personally, I'd rather not have the police owe loyalty to some corporation.

Two points:
1. In the Libertarian view, consumers (i.e., the people at large) would be enforcing responsible behavior by corporations.
2. The police are not among the services Libertarians believe should be privatized. Police, the military, and the court system would remain as they are, the only legitimate functions of a government.

if the electoral system, for example, did not exist, liberals would be in power more often because the cities have more diversity and open-mindess toward the new, thus choosing the more liberal candidate, unless there are other reasons the conservative should be chosen.
Translation: Only liberal city-dwellers are intelligent; rural and suburban conservatives are stupid, ignorant bigots.

Translation: Only liberal city-dwellers are intelligent; rural and suburban conservatives are stupid, ignorant bigots.
i've seen some of their avatars so to say, here and writing letters to the editor, yeah stupid ignorant bigots describes them pretty well

i've seen some of their avatars so to say, here and writing letters to the editor, yeah stupid ignorant bigots describes them pretty well
What about conservative city dwellers :p

Here is a quick test of where you are politically. You maybe surprised

only because it is a test determined to make everyone and everything a libertarian party member - even anarchists like myself

Two points:
1. In the Libertarian view, consumers (i.e., the people at large) would be enforcing responsible behavior by corporations.
2. The police are not among the services Libertarians believe should be privatized. Police, the military, and the court system would remain as they are, the only legitimate functions of a government.
On Micheal Badnarik's site (www.badnarik.org), he has an essay advocating privatization of the police. So is this just him personally?

What about conservative city dwellers :p
ironically, they are also usually stupid ignorant bigots

ironically, they are also usually stupid ignorant bigots
Are generalizations and frequent insulting common traits among stupid ignorant bigots?

Are generalizations and frequent insulting common traits among stupid ignorant bigots?

Yes. Although I can't say that we have any of those here... ;)

Are generalizations and frequent insulting common traits among stupid ignorant bigots?
you would know wouldnt you

I wish there were more Libertarians in this country
I gave one of my regional council votes to the Libertarianz party leader. I wish the Libertarianz would merge with ACT because I believe in almost no government as much as I believe in 20% flat tax.
Which is basically what Libertarianz and ACT stand for, a better new zealand.

you would know wouldnt you

Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Mr. Kettle is a bit paler than you, but don't mind that.

Surely their philosophy of small government, and both economic freedom and personal freedom is closest to the Founding Fathers of the USA?

Probably because the Founding Fathers would have found something like Standard Oil to be impossible on the face of it. Capitalism was in it's infancy when the Founders wrote the Constitution (Adam Smith's work The Wealth of Nations was written the same year the revolution broke out), and they most likely never envisioned a time when business would be so powerful that it could actually bail out the government (which J.D. Morgan actually did once for the U.S.), or that it would be so rapacious as to force it's workers to work 12-14 hour days for less than subsistence wages. Nor still could they envision a time when the U.S. would be required to fight extended wars on the scale of something like World War II or the Cold War. Both of those projects (business regulation and fighting fascism and then communism) required huge sums of money that vastly outstripped the ability of the old tariff system of raising money to implement. Had they known what kind of problems the citizens of the U.S. would face, they probably wouldn't have been quite as averse to direct taxation as they were.

Of course, this is also the central theme of the Libertarian party: no direct taxation. How we would deal with something like The War on Terror when using tariffs (which, it might be noted, would likely cripple our economy in the long term as those nations we export too return the favor) to pay for our defense is conveniently not mentioned by most Libertarians.

Libertarians are almost too conservative for Joe Sixpack (average citizen) to follow
Surely Libertarians are, by definition, not conservative?

Why are Libertarians conservative?

Libertarian - politically it means somebody who wants to stay out of the lives of its citizens (a LIBERAL ideal) and keep the market reasonably free (I know this part is conservative but all it does is make a Libertarian look a little more moderate).

Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Mr. Kettle is a bit paler than you, but don't mind that.
that was the point of the post, but thanks for outlining it for me

that was the point of the post, but thanks for outlining it for me

You were making a joke on yourself? How very amusing. :)

You were making a joke on yourself? How very amusing. :)
i meant him

i meant him

I know. That's why I made the earlier comment.

I had one(an ex friend) who once remarked on JFK's speech "Ask not...." was his way of making sure the people stay with big goverment and the 2 party system.

I actually agree to a large extent that it is. It's definately fascist.

because they are nuts
BINGO

you read their literature and they SEEM reasonable
but you MEET them or take a good look at the leadership
and they are NUTZ

BINGO

you read their literature and they SEEM reasonable
but you MEET them or take a good look at the leadership
and they are NUTZ
they dont even SEEM reasonable to me, when you meet them it just solidifys it. libertarians are in the closet anarchists

they dont even SEEM reasonable to me, when you meet them it just solidifys it. libertarians are in the closet anarchists

hey now, we'll take about half of them. but the rest just want corporations to be able to do whatever they want with no regard for anybody else - which rules them out of anarchism.

Actually .... it's because Libertarians have absolutely *zero* compassion.

Or perhaps we believe that people are capable of showing compassion to others without government compulsion.

being a Libertarian Socialist, I sympathize with many political and moral stances they take, but do feel that to much is left to corperations (which I dont see how they can be trusted) with much of what they propose.

RE: The aforementioned comment

Libertarians have at least as much compassion as members of other parties if not more so. Rather than taking the vote-buying approach of most modern politicians, libertarians shun costly social programs. They may sound attractive to voters, but they are always going to be hollow promises. I wouldn’t call forcing Americans to commit their hard-earned retirement money to the bankrupting (often stolen from by politicians) Social Security System compassionate. Would you?

In contrast, wanting to relieve the people from the oppression and taxation that define our government is pretty darn compassionate.

Perhaps you are not able to see the compassion in libertarianism because you version of "compassion" justifies deviating from morality for the greater good. Tax is theft. It doesn’t matter why the theft is being committed, unless you believe that the end justifies the means. If you do believe that the ends justify the means, take a good look in the mirror because you are a fanatic. The defining characteristic of a fanatic is the willingness to suspend morals for the sake of personal agenda.

If you want to help starving children, or whatever beneficial act that you want to have happen in the world, stop forcing your values onto the populous and start making a real difference with your own effort.

If you preach compassion, then you should practice it likewise. Adopt a child. Donate to charity. But for the sake of others, who don't share your values, stop trying to rob us for the purpose of financing of your private version of utopia.

Also it should be noted that most libertarians are not against the actions of local governments. We need roads and many other vital functions preformed at the local level. Often times much good can be done on this scale without large or oppressive taxes.

The reason Libertarians focus on the federal level is because the federal government is way out of its constitutional bounds. It is at this top level that the government is most dangerous from the libertarian viewpoint.

It is vital to shrink the federal government and to restore states rights; otherwise we will find ourselves degenerating into the kind of arbitrary social control present when we were ruled by the English.

I gave one of my regional council votes to the Libertarianz party leader. I wish the Libertarianz would merge with ACT because I believe in almost no government as much as I believe in 20% flat tax.
Which is basically what Libertarianz and ACT stand for, a better new zealand.

Hi Kiwipeso.

I'm a Lib in Wellington, and it's good to see someone interested in the party.

If you drop me an email, I can tell you a bit more about the wellington libz; kiwicrog@paradise.net.nz

Craig

Now sorry. The arguments that Libs have compasion fall short on the fact that I have heard that people down on their luck are basically shifty and lazy; looking for handouts.

The say all social programs are wrong because people shouldn't have aid "forced on them" or they shouldn't have to be taxed to provide aid since the social programs never work.

Fact is my mom did welfare for a short spell. We are better off having done it and probably reached farther because we were givin "breathing room" to pursue things rather then just existing.

My grandparents were part of the great depression and social security helped them out.

No compassion is not a label that I have yet to be able to apply to the libertarians that I have met.

Now sorry. The arguments that Libs have compasion fall short on the fact that I have heard that people down on their luck are basically shifty and lazy; looking for handouts.

Poverty is not a natural disaster like an earthquake or a tornado, it has clear and obvious human causes such as 1/ govt messing up the economy 2/ govt welfare failing to do its job 3/ personal irresponsibility. Sure there are those who are just downright unlucky, that's why we distinguish between the deserving and undeserving poor, and those who are unlucky can count on voluntary private charity to get them back on their feet.

It is true though, many people are just shifty and lazy; looking for handouts.

The say all social programs are wrong because people shouldn't have aid "forced on them" or they shouldn't have to be taxed to provide aid since the social programs never work.

Taxation is armed robbery, if you don't believe me try not paying. It is because of it's inherent violence that we oppose it.

Fact is my mom did welfare for a short spell. We are better off having done it and probably reached farther because we were givin "breathing room" to pursue things rather then just existing.

Sure, but if she hadn't had to pay taxes while she was working she would have more money to save for such emergencies. If you want unemployment insurance you could get it from an insurance company. It's easy to say people need govt money when the govt confiscates 40+% of their income (higher than that for the poorest).

My grandparents were part of the great depression and social security helped them out.
It also prolonged the depression for a decade. As nobel laurette Milton Friedman showed, the govt and the central bank caused the great depression. So the govt "solved" a problem IT was responsible for in the first place!

No compassion is not a label that I have yet to be able to apply to the libertarians that I have met.
As Lysander Spooner says,

"Man, no doubt, owes many other moral duties to his fellow men; such as to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, care for the sick, protect the defenceless, assist the weak, and enlighten the ignorant. But these are simply moral duties, of which each man must be his own judge, in each particular case, as to whether, and how, and how far, he can, or will, perform them. But of his legal duty – that is, of his duty to live honestly towards his fellow men – his fellow men not only may judge, but, for their own protection, must judge. And, if need be, they may rightfully compel him to perform it. They may do this, acting singly, or in concert. They may do it on the instant, as the necessity arises, or deliberately and systematically, if they prefer to do so, and the exigency will admit of it."

Libertarians are very compassionate, especially towards victims of govt violence such as drug users, gun owners, taxpayers and of course war victims (and anybody who supports govt drug bans, gun bans, taxation or war is not a Libertarian no matter what they say).

My only question with the platform is the notion that somehow not choosing is a greater good than choosing. Not choosing is in fact another choice, one chooses not to choose. This can be seen by the following plank in the platform.

By government "keeping out of the question" haven't they in fact entered into the question?

What they are saying, and I happen to aggree with them, is that an individual is more capable of making a moral decision based on the circumstances of their own lives than a beurocrat, senator, judge, or just some random schmoe in another state. They believe, like Jefferson did, that governments cannot be trusted, and that they must be kept in check at all times and at virtually all costs. While you, I, or any random person on the street may find some particular act morally questionable or even reprehensible, it is not the governments responsibility to step in and legislate that, unless the lack of doing so poses a greater risk than the risk of legislation.

Since there has never been an unbiased report that has shown a danger with not legislating that particular moral and personal decision, they are saying that it is better not to legislate it, than to risk stepping in with legislation and stepping on the rights of an individual to come to their own moral conclusions about their own lives.

I.E. The risk of legislation is that personal freedoms get disregarded which is serious. The risk of non-legislation is indetermined and likely very minor, so non-legislation is the preferred method.

Can't seem to agree whether:

a) I have the right to smoke where I want
b) I have the right to breathe clean air in all public spaces

Can't seem to agree whether:

a) I have the right to smoke where I want
b) I have the right to breathe clean air in all public spaces
That's because it is a property issue. You have the right to do whatever you like, including smoking, on your own property while on other peoples' property you need their permission. If you are in someone's bar and you don't like people smoking in it that's tough, because it is not your bar. You're there as a guest and if you don't like it you can leave. Only when we have "public spaces", or rather land that has been seized by the government (or paid for with money the govt stole), does it become a political issue. The govt land should be given away or sold off then it would be up to owners to decide if you may smoke on it or not.