NationStates Jolt Archive

Out of curiosity how many people here are libertarians? I am. Its the only sensible choice in my mind.

for those of you who dont know what a libertarian is go http://www.lp.org/

Me! :D

and me!

Okay let me look at their issues:
Substantially reduce the size and intrusiveness of government and cut all taxes.

Let peaceful, honest people offer their goods and services to willing consumers without a hassle from government.

Let peaceful, honest people decide for themselves what to eat, drink, read, or smoke and how to dress, medicate themselves, or make love, without fear of criminal penalties.

The U.S. government should defend Americans and their property in America and let the U.S. taxpayer off the hook for the defense bill of wealthy countries like Germany and Japan.


Cutting all taxes is as bad as the the first Government that failed because it couldn't afford an army without taxes.

Second, we shouldn't defend wealthy nations... why?

Legalizing drugs...how nice. Cocaine for the kids?
Plus Government interfers in Market because of places like Enron.

So they are okay with Pornography for kids? Yeah, that is great...


I didn't mean to mock you guys, but isn't the party a little extreme?

I am, restured voter as one.

Left leaning one.

Me.
BTW BastardSword, libertarians generally think raising children is the responsibility of their parents. And porn is already legal.

Cutting all taxes is as bad as the the first Government that failed because it couldn't afford an army without taxes.

All of the founding fathers warned of a large and established military and military industrial complex, that such things would drive the nation into debt and would tempt the leaders to use them. They got that one right.

Second, we shouldn't defend wealthy nations... why?[?QUOTE]

Because those nations should be responsible for themselves. Just like you should be responsible for youself.

[QUOTE=BastardSword]Legalizing drugs...how nice. Cocaine for the kids?
So they are okay with Pornography for kids? Yeah, that is great...

Here's a novel idea: parent your own children, don't expect the government to do it for you. Cocaine is a perfectly legal drug in this country, with a doctors prescription. It's used as a local anesthetic in plastic surgery all the time and is no more harmful or addictive than oxycontin when used appropriately.


I didn't mean to mock you guys, but isn't the party a little extreme?

Our party isn't for whiners. It's for resilient, self reliant people who want to be free of government involvement in our private lives, people who don't agree with big government federalism, and people who don't like big money corruption that goes along with cronie capitalism that this current administration has a penchant for.

The Libertarian Party is for those who agree with the original intent and ideals of the founding fathers of this country, and have the testicular fortitude to live by it.

Ish...

Sorry to bother you all, as I'm from Canada and Libertarianism isn't really anything here... but those of you that identify yourselves as Libertarians... how exactly do you live your lives as Libertarians? You don't need to tell me your beliefs, unless they relate to specific behavior.

I'm just curious, as frankly a lot of people say they believe in something, but certainly don't act like it.

Thanks in advance. :)

i can definately agree with some of there issues such as the legalization of all drugs, this would be very beneficial, because, making drugs illegal doesn't make them go away, wake up, it is better to treat them as a disease, if you are addicted, then sticking them in a prison, where, most non-violent criminals, come out of prison and commit violent crimes, but i am a socialist, and that is my view from a socialist perspective, libertarians, are like lazi-faire (spelling probably wrong) capitalists, whom believe, that there should be no laws restricting, any of the industries, or any companies

I'm British, and the while the US Libertarian Party shares the name with Liberal Democrats, in practise they have more in common with the British Conservative Party: A party I can't imagine myself voting for any time soon. I count myself as liberal but that's a very different form of liberal to the US.

Hell, take a random "Liberals Suck" thread from around here and they're describing the old style British Labour party.

I am a Libertarian.

I'm all for the political and social freedoms that libertarianism entails, but laissez-faire economics are simply hazardous to the health of those who don't own 15 cars and 2 yachts.

I'm much more socially libertarian than many self-described liberals (I support legalization of ALL drugs, and loosening of gun control), but economically I'm a moderate welfare liberal.

I guess you could say I'm a liberal-itarian.


Oh, and for those attacking what they see as the extreme platforms of the libertarians, there IS a difference between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.

Im close enough to one

Sorry to bother you all, as I'm from Canada and Libertarianism isn't really anything here... but those of you that identify yourselves as Libertarians... how exactly do you live your lives as Libertarians?

I wouldn't say that they are that much different from regular people. As a characteristic however, Libertarianism promotes values of independence, self reliance, and personal responsibility, and is very against welfare and reliance on the state.

They don't seem to have much organized in the way of lifestyle (no boycotts of fur or whatever), and the platform is more policy oriented.

For lifestyle characteristics, a true Libertarian would be self-reliant and productive, vocal in the defence of individual rights. I wouldn't really call it a lifestyle, though.

LOLOLO

That was funny thank you!

Keep up with that logic! "If you don't belive in our ways you are all just a bunch of stupid pussies!"

The Liberts will never achieve serious power with that logic!

Can't judge the people here as posting doesn't give insight to the person but every Libert I have met has been a major jackass and self declared expert in the Consitution and the Founders.


Hey! You're absolutely right!

I should stop reading NOW, and believe everything that I'm told without forming my own opinion!

I should also just realize that since we're all people that makes us all the same, and trust that what is good for the for the uber-rich must be good for me too!

If you meant by Jackass that I can read and think for myself, am willing to responsibility for myself and am not looking for a handout at the expense of those around me, then I'll take it as a complement, because it was free thinking 'jackasses' that started this country in the first place...

I'm a social libertarian, but I believe taxes are necessary and that business has to be regulated by the government to maintain its health.

I should stop reading NOW, and believe everything that I'm told without forming my own opinion!

I should also just realize that since we're all people that makes us all the same, and trust that what is good for the for the uber-rich must be good for me too!

If you meant by Jackass that I can read and think for myself, am willing to responsibility for myself and am not looking for a handout at the expense of those around me, then I'll take it as a complement, because it was free thinking 'jackasses' that started this country in the first place...

:rolleyes:

Ah ok. Everybody else is dumb and a freeloader.

Only Liberts think and read for themselves. :rolleyes:

Well I pity your group. There are too many retarted layabouts that just can't seem to accept your views.

:rolleyes:

Ah ok. Everybody else is dumb and a freeloader.

Only Liberts think and read for themselves. :rolleyes:

Well I pity your group. There are too many retarted layabouts that just can't seem to accept your views.

Hey, you said it.

And don't pity us, pity the people who feel they need to rely on a government for thier well being instead of themselves. We especially don't want your pity, because you'd probably try to implement an expensive and wasteful, porkladen program to try and help us, and that's the last thing we want.

If you had taken a close at the Repubs lately, you'd know precisely where I'm coming from. Had you read any of the documents written by the founding fathers, you'd know where I'm coming from. All we want is to put America back the way it used to be, back when it was still free.

:rolleyes:

Ah ok. Everybody else is dumb and a freeloader.

Only Liberts think and read for themselves. :rolleyes:

Well I pity your group. There are too many retarted layabouts that just can't seem to accept your views.

Exactly the same kind of ignorance we accuse the Republicans of. I don't think any libertarians care that you have a generalization of ignorance for them, that there can't possibly be any good ideas within the party because you (or the guy a few posts above you) personally disliked the ones you met. Hey, some people also voted for Bush because they thought he had more character, as if that is somehow valuable in shaping our country's policies.

I'm a social libertarian, but I believe taxes are necessary and that business has to be regulated by the government to maintain its health.
I agree with this. Business regulation actually protects capitalism from dangerous monopolies and other abuses. Of course, there are instances where regulation goes a little far, but in general, some regulation is necessary or you might be getting rat shit in your canned meat.

And without taxes, how do we protect our country (i.e. military)?

I agree with this. Business regulation actually protects capitalism from dangerous monopolies and other abuses. Of course, there are instances where regulation goes a little far, but in general, some regulation is necessary or you might be getting rat shit in your canned meat.

And without taxes, how do we protect our country (i.e. military)?

We do.

After WWII, several Japanese generals and admirals were asked about invading the continental US, one was quoted as saying "No way, there would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass."

I'm a libertarian (with a lower case "l") - the LP is a bit radical a lot of the time, though I did vote for many Libertarians (including Badnarik). And as someone said earlier, there's a difference between libertarianism and the anarcho-capitalism of regulation-free business.

yeah, me too. although I'm also a hawk and I think the current Libertarian Party is completely wrong about foreign policy. If you're wondering how those two views square away... it is reasonable to insist on freedom for everyone, not just oneself or one's country. think of that view as "globalist libertarian". everyone wants to be free, but they usually can't free themselves. we can help, and therefore as freedom-loving people we have a duty to help. sic semper tyrannis.

incidentally I think there are quite a few third world countries whose governments would be improved tremendously if western mercenaries took them over... and they certainly have the capability to do so. for example Blackwater could take over western Sudan... huge improvement. in the interest of a free-market approach to freedom promotion around the world (by means of war), I suggest our government should start issuing "letters of marque and reprisal" to private companies for operations like this.

I thinking about going libertarian, but as it stands I am an economic libertarian and a social conservative.
(As opposed to all those who are calling themselves social libertarians.)

Okay let me look at their issues:


Cutting all taxes is as bad as the the first Government that failed because it couldn't afford an army without taxes.

Actually, the platform isn't about "cutting all taxes", it's about cutting Income Tax, and many of the other excise taxes places directly upon the populace; not tariffs on exported and/or imported good. And I may remind you, "income tax" is a recent invention; the "New" US didn't have income tax any more than the "Old" US under the Articles of Confederation.


Second, we shouldn't defend wealthy nations... why?

Actually, your question is not valid, why should we defend wealthy nations, that have more than enough funds to defend themselves?


Legalizing drugs...how nice. Cocaine for the kids?

Obviouslt parents can handle issues with their kids; the primary issue is adults.


Plus Government interfers in Market because of places like Enron.

Ah, companies like Enron, who alos got where they were at with huge blankets of Corporate Welfare checks and other government handouts to help them screw their employees [why is it everyone conveiniently "forgets" about Corporate Welfare?]


So they are okay with Pornography for kids? Yeah, that is great...

Parental issue, not government issue.


I didn't mean to mock you guys, but isn't the party a little extreme?

No more extreme then parties that like to regulate the crap out of people, rape them with taxes, and either hand their money to rich corporate executive buddies, or lazy crack-whores. (cough)democrats(cough)republicans(cough)...

We do.

After WWII, several Japanese generals and admirals were asked about invading the continental US, one was quoted as saying "No way, there would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass."

You go ahead and shoot down a jet fighter or sink a boat with that rifle. If you are really good, you could stop an ICBM with it.

I am a Libertarian except I disagree with the no regulation thing. There should be very little but not a complete absence of it. I believe there should be taxes on some things for defense and stuff but no Income Tax or anything like that.

You go ahead and shoot down a jet fighter or sink a boat with that rifle. If you are really good, you could stop an ICBM with it.

Rule one for war: it's not yours until you have a guy with a gun guarding it for you.

All of the fance weapons are for assisting the infantry, infantry are still the ones who have to do the bulk of the fighting.

If an ICBM is coming, that means ours are already on they're way, so we're both f*cked.

I am also a lowercase "l" libertarian. The problem with the Libertarian Party is that they think you have to follow all of the party platform to a T.

I think the government should stay out of people's personal business, including marriage. I think the government shouldn't tax as much as they do.

I mean, the problems I have with the libertarian party have to do with them saying privatize everything. I think Social Security, healthcare, and stuff like that should be privatized, but not roads, National Parks, police, the post office, or all schools. We should all contribute to charity, but to only the ones we want and only the amounts we want.

I think schools should be run by the community mostly. I also think there should be non-religious private schools that teach children academics and athletics other than moral values, cause morality is relative.

I sound Republican, but I like Democrats more. I hate all of these religious quacks running my country and I think that the government has no right to tell people how to bring up their children. I don't care if kids see porn. I don't care if they have a bit of drink now and then. Now, if you believe in freedom, then why not show it. Freedom is for all. Not just those above 18, in my opinion.

I would consider myself a libertarian, but I don't really bother to align myself with a party. If you compared myself to a party, I would fit into a libertarian party.

But since our nation will never achieve more than a 2 party system (not anytime soon, at least), then I would just consider myself democrat.

Of course, when it comes to elections, I don't vote all democrat, it is really subjective. There are republicans I would vote for, simply because they are good politicians and have a record of good, reputable decisions that I still agree with.

I have created a region for Libertarians, libertarians, left-libertarians, right-libertarians and anyone that agrees with some of the lp's views. It is Libertarian Island

I am a Libertarian except I disagree with the no regulation thing. There should be very little but not a complete absence of it.

I suspect the most logical outcome of rational thought would be a Social Libertarian form of governance. One where individuals are motivated towards acts of free expression and creation, and which you did not have to rent yourself out to a large business as a wage-slave.

I mean, really, if you are not libertarian, you basically are saying "I believe in putting down people because they are different from me, and I should have power over them in some way."

Which, of course, completely goes against the word "Free", which is the general reason why the majority of the world seems to view the US as not free. Most everywhere else the world is moving forward towards a more civilized outcome. In the US, it is heading backwards.

No thanks, it sounds too much like anarchy to me.

I am a Libertarian of the New Zealand variety. (http://www.libertarianz.org.nz)

Though I am less militant and extreme than last year.

It seems funny to me that there are so many people who want personal rights but not economic ones (i.e. Take drugs and let someone else pay for the medical bill) or economic rights but not personal ones (i.e. Run your finances relatively freely, but have intrusions into your personal life)

Why do these two options make up the majority of world opinion?

Why is my view (i.e. Everyone should be able to live as the wish, as long as they do not initiate force against another person) considered so extreme?

The two options:

Individual Freedom with little individual responsibility (Left)
or
Little individual freedom with individual responsibility (Right)

are good and normal, but being able to be both free and responsible is extreme :confused:



EDIT: Why do people insist on calling themselves "Social Libertarians"? Someone who is socially libertarian but economically authoritarian is a socialist/left-wing.

A libertarian is ONLY someone who believes in freedom and responsibility in BOTH spheres of your life.

Libertarians unite!

I agree with this. Business regulation actually protects capitalism from dangerous monopolies and other abuses. Of course, there are instances where regulation goes a little far, but in general, some regulation is necessary or you might be getting rat shit in your canned meat.

And without taxes, how do we protect our country (i.e. military)?

How about instead of one government monopoly regulating ur food (the FDA) allow many privatized regulators. This will definitely ensure better quality.

I'm a libertarian, economically and socially.

Economically, the private sector provides a better service/product because it's a competitive market, not a government monopoly.

Socially, taxation is just unfair. Why punish the successful and reward the failures of society? And in the case of people who genuinely can't earn a living on grounds of physical disability, private charity does a perfect job of keeping them comfortable.

Socially, too, people should rule themselves. The government needs only to SERVE the populace by preventing blatant crimes like murder, rape and theft through the provision of basic law enforcement and military denfense.

Arguably certain other areas of public service (provision of some public land perhaps to facilitate travel without trespassing) are required of government, but these negligible sums of money would hardly represent taxation at all.

So yeah, I'm libertarian. Government should stay the hell out of the life, liberty and property of the populace, and the economy too (which represents property and the right to trade).

"Why is my view (i.e. Everyone should be able to live as the wish, as long as they do not initiate force against another person) considered so extreme?"

I concur absolutely with your point of view. No region of society, be it economic or personal, needs any kind of excess of government meddling.

I have created a region for Libertarians, libertarians, left-libertarians, right-libertarians and anyone that agrees with some of the lp's views. It is Libertarian Island

Hey I think I'm gonna join u guys!

EDIT: Why do people insist on calling themselves "Social Libertarians"? Someone who is socially libertarian but economically authoritarian is a socialist/left-wing.
Well, there is the issue of guns. Many liberals come out against guns. Hence, some left-leaning, pro-gun liberals identify as socially libertarian, and economically authoritarian, rather than the blanket term "liberal".

Me, I'm very socially libertarian, and moderate economically (capitalist with restrictions, and some support for government programs).

I agree with this. Business regulation actually protects capitalism from dangerous monopolies and other abuses. Of course, there are instances where regulation goes a little far, but in general, some regulation is necessary or you might be getting rat shit in your canned meat.

And without taxes, how do we protect our country (i.e. military)?

How many coercive 'monopolies' have there been? And of those, how many were created with government aid?

If there is only one grocery store in your town, isn't it a monopoly (even if it's run by mom and pop)?

"Not I." said the wolf.

How many coercive 'monopolies' have there been? And of those, how many were created with government aid?

If there is only one grocery store in your town, isn't it a monopoly (even if it's run by mom and pop)?
Well, Big Oil and Big Steel were pretty close to monopolies in the 1800s. Ironically it took a Republican (Teddy Roosevelt) to break them up and enforce the first economic restrictions against the previously understood lazzie faire capitalism.

I am, restured voter as one.

Left leaning one.

Im an extreme right leaning libertarian :cool:

And without taxes, how do we protect our country (i.e. military)?

Well, one idea is to bring back "letters of marque". Basically issue private individuals or companies legal authority to wage war abroad against our enemies (with restrictions, of course).

My thinking is this... there are plenty of private security companies (Blackwater comes to mind) who would be able to (for example) stabilize the situation in western Sudan (and save hundreds of thousands of lives). They have the equipment and the expertise since most of them are former Delta or SEALS or whatever. Basically those guys are as good as the most elite commando units of any nation. Yeah, they're "only" light infantry... right. (btw one recent story from Iraq had 200 or so insurgents attacking 2 "contractors" and one Marine for several hours... result, half the insurgents were killed, our guys had minor wounds) They would probably be willing to do many missions for free if they can legally loot from the bad guys (who are usually damn well funded). So it need not cost the US government anything to deal with Sudan (or Haiti/Colombia or whatever your favorite trouble spot is). I should also mention that in many cases people will happily donate to operations like that. Larger operations (free Cuba/Iran/...?) would require a consortium of companies.

Bounties are also great.

Well, Big Oil and Big Steel were pretty close to monopolies in the 1800s. Ironically it took a Republican (Teddy Roosevelt) to break them up and enforce the first economic restrictions against the previously understood lazzie faire capitalism.


They were not coercive monopolies. Roosevelt was certainly no libertarian.

"The Sherman Act may be understandable when viewed as a projection of the nineteenth century's fear and economic ignorance....It takes extraordinary skill and to hold more than fifty percent of a large industry's market in a free economy. It requires unusual productive ability, unfailing business judgement....The rare company which is able to retain its share of the market year after year...deserves praise, not condemnation."

Alan Greenspan

How many coercive 'monopolies' have there been? And of those, how many were created with government aid?

Exactly! All of them were created with government aid. (e.g. railroads: eminent domain to give them rights of way and looking the other way when they employed coolie slave labor; steel/coal: breaking up the labor unions by police force; Microsoft: copyrights). Most people happily ignore that and look to the government to break up monopolies. How about if the government stopped creating monopolies in the first place?

Well, one idea is to bring back "letters of marque". Basically issue private individuals or companies legal authority to wage war abroad against our enemies (with restrictions, of course).




I recommend this book; it's an incredible story.

On Wings of Eagles


Product Description:
When two of his American employees were held hostage in Iran, H. Ross Perot and a select group of his employees took matters into their own hands.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451163532/102-4626321-8238529?v=glance

Well, one idea is to bring back "letters of marque". Basically issue private individuals or companies legal authority to wage war abroad against our enemies (with restrictions, of course).

My thinking is this... there are plenty of private security companies (Blackwater comes to mind) who would be able to (for example) stabilize the situation in western Sudan (and save hundreds of thousands of lives). They have the equipment and the expertise since most of them are former Delta or SEALS or whatever. Basically those guys are as good as the most elite commando units of any nation. Yeah, they're "only" light infantry... right. (btw one recent story from Iraq had 200 or so insurgents attacking 2 "contractors" and one Marine for several hours... result, half the insurgents were killed, our guys had minor wounds) They would probably be willing to do many missions for free if they can legally loot from the bad guys (who are usually damn well funded). So it need not cost the US government anything to deal with Sudan (or Haiti/Colombia or whatever your favorite trouble spot is). I should also mention that in many cases people will happily donate to operations like that. Larger operations (free Cuba/Iran/...?) would require a consortium of companies.

Bounties are also great.

America employed "pirates" in the Revolutionary War, basically mercenaries who operated at their own leisure, and kept whatever they sacked from British vessels.

It's an interesting idea, but privatizing the military seems a little extreme nowadays, doesn't it? :p

America employed "pirates" in the Revolutionary War, basically mercenaries who operated at their own leisure, and kept whatever they sacked from British vessels.

It's an interesting idea, but privatizing the military seems a little extreme nowadays, doesn't it? :p
If most of the Military is in private industries... is'nt that what is going in Afganistan?
The Warlords are private armies. They helped when we fought Taliban, but now they cause instability?

What if the Industries and their armies decide to take control. Only army is another Industry?

Privatizing the military is a bit too far. The governments primary functions [in my opinion] are to protect civil liberties, handle foreign affairs, defense, the courts, and possibly education (privatizing has its pluses and negatives so I'm undecided, but leaning AGAINST privatizing education at this time). Really these are the main functions of the government with perhaps a small welfare system and healthcare system, but that's a maybe. Because really does welfare actually WORK? And does private charity do any better? And of course economically, I favour labor unions and minimum wage (ridiculous minimum wages are bad, though - high and low).

If most of the Military is in private industries... is'nt that what is going in Afganistan?
The Warlords are private armies. They helped when we fought Taliban, but now they cause instability?

What if the Industries and their armies decide to take control. Only army is another Industry?

Well private industries could make the weapons, etc and not neccessarily control the armies.

America employed "pirates" in the Revolutionary War, basically mercenaries who operated at their own leisure, and kept whatever they sacked from British vessels.

You probably mean "privateers" not pirates. Yep, that was common in that era, the Brits commonly issued letters of marque against pirates, the Spanish, French and everyone else they didn't like, and other countries did the same.

It's an interesting idea, but privatizing the military seems a little extreme nowadays, doesn't it? :p

We are almost there, a lot of the security and logistics in Iraq is private. The only difference is that now the Rules of Engagement for those guys are "don't shoot unless someone shoots at you first"... I'm suggesting we should change that. I want rules that say, in essence, "X is our enemy, and anything you do to them is legal" (anything within the laws of war, of course).

It's not so extreme if you've looked at what our military is actually doing, and where the military budget is going. Our military is very powerful, but it is it is not nearly agile and adaptable enough to deal with our current enemies. The usual problem is that you can either blast the bad guys to smithereens, along with everyone else within 500 feet... or arrive with enough ground forces to blast them to smithereens, ten hours after they've left. And the military budget is mostly going to extremely expensive crap that either doesn't work (Stryker, Osprey, OICW) or that doesn't do anything particularly useful (JSF, Comanche), instead of much cheaper stuff that does work (machineguns on every vehicle, one barrett rifle per squad, really good scopes, bicycles, guided 70mm rockets, littlebirds, language training... you get the idea). (Disclaimer: the part of the budget that goes to training and to building training simulators has been very well spent). Our field commanders and troops are awesome, but the REMFs who make the big budget decisions are usually amazingly stupid (like Shinseki - good riddance you bastard). Hopefully, private companies will not have that handicap.

I will grant you that private companies would not have handled WW2... nor could they reasonably build or operate a carrier. However, they are eminently well suited to the kind of conflicts we are in now.

Hey, you said it.

And don't pity us, pity the people who feel they need to rely on a government for thier well being instead of themselves. We especially don't want your pity, because you'd probably try to implement an expensive and wasteful, porkladen program to try and help us, and that's the last thing we want.

If you had taken a close at the Repubs lately, you'd know precisely where I'm coming from. Had you read any of the documents written by the founding fathers, you'd know where I'm coming from. All we want is to put America back the way it used to be, back when it was still free.

Actually I have read many. But lets not go there. You go on thinking what you like about me. I will live.

Oh and the pity part was sarcasm. I guess the Europeans are right we americans can't spot that.

Exactly the same kind of ignorance we accuse the Republicans of. I don't think any libertarians care that you have a generalization of ignorance for them, that there can't possibly be any good ideas within the party because you (or the guy a few posts above you) personally disliked the ones you met. Hey, some people also voted for Bush because they thought he had more character, as if that is somehow valuable in shaping our country's policies.

You assume I am a republican.

I am ignornat. Ok it that floats your boat.

Fact is there seems to be a common "moralistic" theme about "Personal Responsibilty" Just because somebody happened to take a little assistence, they have no personal responsibilty. They don't know the reason why somebody did that. They judge without knowing the reason. That is ignorance.

For all the claims of ignornace and generalizations; the liberts make them just as much as the demos, repubs, whatever.

They know what is better for the country just like the demos, repubs, whatever.

But that is policitics. Everybody has the right solution and everybody knows what's better for everybody else.

Conservative libertarian. ;)

Me, I'm very socially libertarian, and moderate economically (capitalist with restrictions, and some support for government programs).

I'm something like that, too.

I am a Libertarian Communist.

Just because somebody happened to take a little assistence...

Actually I like the biblical way of handling that. Namely, if someone takes food from a field in order to eat it right then and there they are not stealing... but if they take a quantity to carry away, then they are stealing. This obviously can be applied to a few other things (sleeping on the street or in public buildings comes to mind).

I am a Libertarian Communist.
How does that work?

How does that work?
By definition, it doesn't. It may be one of those weird political groups like anarco-commuinists. The term itself does not make sense but the people find a way to use it.

Used to think I was more *extreme* politically than it turns out I actually am.
I guess I'm a moderate Libertarian, but definitely a Libertarian.
The problem with some Libertarians (help us from ourselves!) is that they forget how unconstitutional some of their own ideas are.
The government shouldn't be gotten rid of, that's hardly Libertarian, that's Anarchist. Having an Anarchist government is a contradiciton in terms.
I'm not for no taxes, but less taxes. Someone has to pay for the three branches of government. They are not a necessary evil. Just necessary!
Instead, think more along the lines of a national sales tax. Cut the pork, cut the useless moneydump programs. There'd be plenty for better purposes besides fostering a Dependant Class.
Get rid of all regulation? Not necessary. Give companies the option to opt-out. Opting out doesn't mean manufacturers and service providers are off the hook. Independant third party orgainizations already do a better job at informing and protecting the consumer than the federal government.
Who busts these corps for faulty products? The media and groups like Consumer Reports have done more for the consumer than the lobbyist-laden feds ever have or will. Corps that offer their own guarantees and warrantees provide better assurance to consumers than any regulator hired by the federal government. I don't think that everything can be unregulated.
Think of banks. would you want to place your trust with an institution that can bankrupt and take your savings? All of it?
The FDA is another agency hard to imagine us living without. But they've been hijacked by the pharmaceutical company's anyway.
With the option to opt out, unregulated cancer, AIDS and other new medications would be available to anyone who wanted to use them.
I could go on and on, but I hope that a lot of nonLibertarians out there understand that not everyone who's a party member is so extreme as to be unpractical.
Some of us have thought about the ramifications and solutions to our political aspirations and problems.

Im a liberal libertarien.

Used to think I was more *extreme* politically than it turns out I actually am.
I guess I'm a moderate Libertarian, but definitely a Libertarian.
The problem with some Libertarians (help us from ourselves!) is that they forget how unconstitutional some of their own ideas are.
The government shouldn't be gotten rid of, that's hardly Libertarian, that's Anarchist. Having an Anarchist government is a contradiciton in terms.
I'm not for no taxes, but less taxes. Someone has to pay for the three branches of government. They are not a necessary evil. Just necessary!
Instead, think more along the lines of a national sales tax. Cut the pork, cut the useless moneydump programs. There'd be plenty for better purposes besides fostering a Dependant Class.
Get rid of all regulation? Not necessary. Give companies the option to opt-out. Opting out doesn't mean manufacturers and service providers are off the hook. Independant third party orgainizations already do a better job at informing and protecting the consumer than the federal government.
Who busts these corps for faulty products? The media and groups like Consumer Reports have done more for the consumer than the lobbyist-laden feds ever have or will. Corps that offer their own guarantees and warrantees provide better assurance to consumers than any regulator hired by the federal government. I don't think that everything can be unregulated.
Think of banks. would you want to place your trust with an institution that can bankrupt and take your savings? All of it?
The FDA is another agency hard to imagine us living without. But they've been hijacked by the pharmaceutical company's anyway.
With the option to opt out, unregulated cancer, AIDS and other new medications would be available to anyone who wanted to use them.
I could go on and on, but I hope that a lot of nonLibertarians out there understand that not everyone who's a party member is so extreme as to be unpractical.
Some of us have thought about the ramifications and solutions to our political aspirations and problems.
And that is the difference between anarco-capitalism and libertarianism, a distinction a lot of detractors ignore.

Anyways, I find it telling that this election, after all the press and attention that Nader got, he almost got beat by Badnarik.

Used to think I was more *extreme* politically than it turns out I actually am.


Actually some of what you said I agree with and others I don't. I don't get annoyed by your viewpoints.

It's the extreme cases that annoy me to know in and there seems to be a bunch of them.

Or maybe I just have the luck finding them on the Net or meeting them(the ones I mention, I know personally, there are others but don't know them that well. But they speak the common theme).

Ahh well.....

Crush Fascism with Socialism. Libertarian is a fake. I really have never believed in the policies of Libertarians, considering it reminds me too much of anarchy.

By definition, it doesn't. It may be one of those weird political groups like anarco-commuinists. The term itself does not make sense but the people find a way to use it.

odd then how we predate you authoritarian capitalist 'libertarians', no?

libertarian communism seeks to create a classless and stateless society through libertarian means as opposed to authoritarian ones.

And that is the difference between anarco-capitalism and libertarianism, a distinction a lot of detractors ignore.

Anyways, I find it telling that this election, after all the press and attention that Nader got, he almost got beat by Badnarik.
Someone else noticed that too? Why do you think the media chose to promote (by actually giving him at least some airtime) a candidate with only a fraction of registered members compared to the LP?

(They were biased and scared shitless).

Actually some of what you said I agree with and others I don't. I don't get annoyed by your viewpoints.

It's the extreme cases that annoy me to know in and there seems to be a bunch of them.

Or maybe I just have the luck finding them on the Net or meeting them(the ones I mention, I know personally, there are others but don't know them that well. But they speak the common theme).

Ahh well.....
I hear you. But I think the LP gets the brunt most of the time. I confess, some of it is deserved though. How many idiotic, uninformed Dems and Repubs do you meet everyday full of shit as well? Just as many (probably more).
Ignorance is just pandemic in our society right now as a whole, regardless of political affiliation or spiritual beliefs.

Someone else noticed that too? Why do you think the media chose to promote (by actually giving him at least some airtime) a candidate with only a fraction of registered members compared to the LP?

(They were biased and scared shitless).
I'm guessing Nader's large role in 2000 (he took 2.7% nationally, and cost Gore Florida) just got him instant name-recognition...Democrats begging him not to run, Republicans collecting signatures to get him on the ballots, court cases, etc. In the end, it was a big nothing. He only took 0.38% of the national vote (Badnarik got 0.32%).

I've been thinking for awhile, given the current two-party dominance of politics, it seems "winger" parties (like the Greens and Constitutionals) only hurt their "moderate" party (the Democrats and Republicans). But the Libertarians have the potential to drive straight up the middle, taking moderates as well as ideologues (for instance, liberals who value social freedoms the most, and conservatives who value economic freedoms the most). But given the HUGE amounts of money between the Dems and Repubs, it seems pretty hard for a third party candidate who get close to equal footing (unless you're as rich as Ross Perot).

I'm not for no taxes, but less taxes. Someone has to pay for the three branches of government. They are not a necessary evil. Just necessary!

Um, no. Taxes bad, fees good. The government should collect money you only when you use government services, and possibly when you create a public nuisance whose victims are not easily identifiable (airborne pollution, noisy vehicles, etc). Of course the government can take donations too. Would I donate? You bet, if I can choose which part of the budget the money goes to.

Get rid of all regulation? Not necessary. Give companies the option to opt-out. Opting out doesn't mean manufacturers and service providers are off the hook. Independant third party orgainizations already do a better job at informing and protecting the consumer than the federal government. Who busts these corps for faulty products? The media and groups like Consumer Reports have done more for the consumer than the lobbyist-laden feds ever have or will. Corps that offer their own guarantees and warrantees provide better assurance to consumers than any regulator hired by the federal government.

True, and yet you seem to go against your own conclusion. Look at car safety for example. The feds have the NHSA (or some such, I forget the acronym). Would a private agency (or three) like the UL or Consumer Reports do better? Almost certainly. (the NHSA actually prohibits unbreakable polycarbonate windows from being used in cars, you have to use fragile glass ones, how incredibly stupid is that) Would there be any benefit in having both government and private? Not really.

Think of banks. would you want to place your trust with an institution that can bankrupt and take your savings? All of it?

It can be regulated and still take your savings (remember the S&L scandal anyone?).

By rights any other company that had the finances of your typical bank would be considered insolvent (ten times over, actually)... but banks get away with it because the government creates special rules for them. Is that what you mean by "regulates"?

The FDA is another agency hard to imagine us living without. But they've been hijacked by the pharmaceutical company's anyway.
With the option to opt out, unregulated cancer, AIDS and other new medications would be available to anyone who wanted to use them.

Yeah, obviously that is the problem with the FDA, but if you can opt out - why have it at all?

The real question when looking at any government function is not "is that function necessary?" (the answer to that is usually yes) but "does that function have to be done by the sovereign power?" (the answer is almost always no). Government is a very special (and dangerous) kind of institution that plays by special rules, namely that everything they do is ultimately backed by force; and most of the time you don't need that. Which is not to say that all of those functions have to be performed by private organizations per se... they can be performed by public non-government organizations which are not corporations or whatever. "Private" universities are great examples: they are obviously not "companies", they are a sort of public institution with fairly complex (and stodgy) governance that involves a large number of people (and no, they don't have shareholders :D ) but they are not (and don't need to be) run by the government.

I'm guessing Nader's large role in 2000 (he took 2.7% nationally, and cost Gore Florida) just got him instant name-recognition...Democrats begging him not to run, Republicans collecting signatures to get him on the ballots, court cases, etc. In the end, it was a big nothing. He only took 0.38% of the national vote (Badnarik got 0.32%).

I've been thinking for awhile, given the current two-party dominance of politics, it seems "winger" parties (like the Greens and Constitutionals) only hurt their "moderate" party (the Democrats and Republicans). But the Libertarians have the potential to drive straight up the middle, taking moderates as well as ideologues (for instance, liberals who value social freedoms the most, and conservatives who value economic freedoms the most). But given the HUGE amounts of money between the Dems and Repubs, it seems pretty hard for a third party candidate who get close to equal footing (unless you're as rich as Ross Perot).

I suspect the Green party was somewhat funded by the Republicans.
You're right about the wingers. They don't have the appeal at all to either of the *moderate* party's dissatisfied members.
Last year was a record one for the Libertarian party, and I suspect the trend will continue in each upcoming election as the two biggies become increasingly hard to differentiate. And depending on who you talk to, people either group us with the liberals or conservatives. I find that funny and inspiring at the same time. I don't think I need to point out the obvious implication in that statement.

Would there be any benefit in having both government and private?
I share your enthusiasm to limit the unproductive regulatory powers of force and coersion that the government inflicts on business owners (particularly harmful to small business owners like myself, a fact most liberals forget when speaking of huge multinationals).
But I think that by providing the consumer with the freedom to select between regulated and nonregulated goods and services would be the best way to let the market smooth itself out over a short timeline. If any business in any sector chose to remain regulated after 25 years or so, I'd be very suprised.

Both major parties are as corrpet as it can get. Liberialtarians like myself seem to be a voice of reason anymore.

odd then how we predate you authoritarian capitalist 'libertarians', no?

libertarian communism seeks to create a classless and stateless society through libertarian means as opposed to authoritarian ones.
I think you might have something confused in this statement. Libertarians are the anti-authoritarians. Liberatarian communism would actually be closer to an authoritarian state though it would not be considered one.

odd then how we predate you authoritarian capitalist 'libertarians', no?

libertarian communism seeks to create a classless and stateless society through libertarian means as opposed to authoritarian ones.

How do you eliminate classless without an authoritative figure to enforce it? Contradictory when you think about it.. because with no authority then people are free to assemble into classes on their own. How exactly would you remain classless?

are there any non-american libertarians?

'cause i've only ever come accross american ones. i can't help but wonder if this is because of ayn rand's reactionary philosophy in which promotes america as being the closest to being on the way to an ideal society? i suspect some ego stroking in there.

either that or americans don't care about leaving others high and dry... as evidenced by the largest growing gap between teh rich and the poor

How do you eliminate classless without an authoritative figure to enforce it? Contradictory when you think about it.. because with no authority then people are free to assemble into classes on their own. How exactly would you remain classless?

classes only exist because they are created and maintained by force. without the state (or an entity like it) to enforce the social structures that allow for classes to exist, they simply would not. and as long as a society maintained structures that disallowed privilege and encouraged egalitarianism it would remain classless. that doesn't take a ruling class (that would be a contradiction), but rather an egalitarian and democratic political/social system.

I think you might have something confused in this statement. Libertarians are the anti-authoritarians. Liberatarian communism would actually be closer to an authoritarian state though it would not be considered one.

no, i'm not confused. there is nothing authoritarian about communism - especially in any of its libertarian forms. the closest you'd get is that some authoritarian forms of communism require there to be an authoritarian state to serve as a transition between here and there. but libertarian communism rejects this.

How many idiotic, uninformed Dems and Repubs do you meet everyday full of shit as well? Just as many (probably more).
Ignorance is just pandemic in our society right now as a whole, regardless of political affiliation or spiritual beliefs.

Ok I will give you that point!

Just gotten used to tunning them out! Liberts are new! :p

The ignorance level bugs me. I just love people who interpret things in the Constitution and yet have never looked at it seriously.

My relatives drive me bonkers the most. "I vote a straight ticket republican/democrat all the time!" :(

Sometimes I wonder since we are a label driven society that voting is now handled by the labels people wear rather then what they want for society!

no, i'm not confused. there is nothing authoritarian about communism - especially in any of its libertarian forms. the closest you'd get is that some authoritarian forms of communism require there to be an authoritarian state to serve as a transition between here and there. but libertarian communism rejects this.
Free Soviets, perhaps you could post this in the appropriate new thread I've created just for you: Oddest Political Affiliations, please.
All help would be appreciated, thanks.

Free Soviets, perhaps you could post this in the appropriate new thread I've created just for you: Oddest Political Affiliations, please.
All help would be appreciated, thanks.

libertarian capitalists are a pretty odd bunch too, while we're at it. talk about a contradiction - the idea that gross disparities in wealth and power that are quite obviously artificially created by society aren't just good things, but are 'libertarian' too. craziness.

*raises hand*

I'm a libertarian!

*puts complementary pin on chest*

libertarian capitalists are a pretty odd bunch too, while we're at it. talk about a contradiction - the idea that gross disparities in wealth and power that are quite obviously artificially created by society aren't just good things, but are 'libertarian' too. craziness.
Then post your concerns here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=381403) instead of hijacking this thread.

instead of hijacking this thread.

how is it a hijack for one libertarian to defend his libertarianism against the claims of other people who claim to be libertarians?

Hell, post wherever you like. I'm a libertarian, remember?

You assume I am a republican.

I am ignornat. Ok it that floats your boat.

Fact is there seems to be a common "moralistic" theme about "Personal Responsibilty" Just because somebody happened to take a little assistence, they have no personal responsibilty. They don't know the reason why somebody did that. They judge without knowing the reason. That is ignorance.

For all the claims of ignornace and generalizations; the liberts make them just as much as the demos, repubs, whatever.

They know what is better for the country just like the demos, repubs, whatever.

But that is policitics. Everybody has the right solution and everybody knows what's better for everybody else.

For clarification, I only was pointing to republicans as an example of ignorance that we often criticize, as I think many in the forum are on common ground on that topic, not calling you one.

And again you are still generalizing over the Libs unfairly. "Just because somebody happened to take a little assistence, they have no personal responsibilty." There is way more to it than that, and your idea is very unfair and generalizing. And I'd really like to know where you get the 'they don't know the reason' why people went on welfare thing. The facts are as accessible to them as anyone else. But that is the point you were banking on to justify calling them ignorant, so the ignorant label on the LP no longer sticks.

I myself don't have any disagreements with the idea of personal responsibility, and if that is the foundation of their political beleifs, it's hardly a bad building block.

I am a Libertarian Communist.

Thats kind of an oxymoron since communism demands force.

I would definitely consider myself predominantly libertarian. I agree with several of those who have posted before me: libertarianism is frequently erroneously equated with anarcho-capitalism. The actual Libertarian Party platform seems a little extreme for me; for example, I would oppose the abolishment of all public schools. However, I agree with the vast majority of the Libertarian philosophy: that, if everybody could just mind their own business and go about their lives peacefully, we would all be a lot better off.

are there any non-american libertarians?

'cause i've only ever come accross american ones. i can't help but wonder if this is because of ayn rand's reactionary philosophy in which promotes america as being the closest to being on the way to an ideal society? i suspect some ego stroking in there.

either that or americans don't care about leaving others high and dry... as evidenced by the largest growing gap between teh rich and the poor

Ayn Rand's views are correctly coined Objectionist, not really libertarian (but close). Her theories could apply to any country. Why not?
Do Americans tend to be more libertarian than some others?
Maybe. The Libertarian party is the third largest party in our country. I wouldn't call that suprising.

And again you are still generalizing over the Libs unfairly. "Just because somebody happened to take a little assistence, they have no personal responsibilty." There is way more to it than that, and your idea is very unfair and generalizing. And I'd really like to know where you get the 'they don't know the reason' why people went on welfare thing. The facts are as accessible to them as anyone else. But that is the point you were banking on to justify calling them ignorant, so the ignorant label on the LP no longer sticks.

I myself don't have any disagreements with the idea of personal responsibility, and if that is the foundation of their political beleifs, it's hardly a bad building block.

The welfare thing: If you are refering to welfare queens. They are so small in number that it's baseless to judge the whole system by them. And if people wag their fingers and say lazy slobs take responcibility for yourself!

That is ignorance.

My mom did assistence for about year. Why? She was uneducated, had two children, and had husband who ran away. This was before the new laws and at a time when people would say unkind things about single divorsed moms.

She did a shit job (I think the assistence helped with food and rent, she would never give the full details) and went to night school to study nursing.

End result: An RN with over 40000 births under her belt. She does expert testimony for birth lawsuits.

I am a Wan Engineer.

My sister does custom design on Broadway.

Mom says the fact she didn't have to work multiple jobs played a big difference in our upbringing.

Assistence isn't bad. Assistence isn't people simply looking for a free ride.

Finally, my sister and I have never used public assistence and we never will.....

We are good sirs and madames! Ayn Rand while brilliantly intelligent and rational, has views that seem to me to be too cold and heartless. In a way however Americans anyway are living by many of her views when it comes to her ideas about selfishness and how living for ones self is what is right. I have read Anthem and a little of Atlas Shrugged (about 150pgs) I like her individualism but loath her fierce robotic like stance on selfishness.

Ayn Rand's views are correctly coined Objectionist, not really libertarian (but close). Her theories could apply to any country. Why not?
Do Americans tend to be more libertarian than some others?
Maybe. The Libertarian party is the third largest party in our country. I wouldn't call that suprising.

THAT'S AWESOME!
where good sir are you from anyway? just curious.

How many coercive 'monopolies' have there been? And of those, how many were created with government aid?
1. I don't know.
2. All of them.

If there is only one grocery store in your town, isn't it a monopoly (even if it's run by mom and pop)?No, as long as other are allowed to compete. If mom and pop are good buddies with city coucil and managed to keep out competitors using zoning laws, you could probably call that a monopoly.

monopoly defined (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monopoly)

THAT'S AWESOME!
where good sir are you from anyway? just curious.
Florida, kind madam, and I meant Objectivist, for accuracy.

I think it's silly to expect someone to be completely sold on libertarianism by one visit to the LP website. I was first introduced to the party when CSPAN was covering their '96 presidential campaign. I liked what I saw but was hesitant to embrace the radical political philosophy. Only about a year ago, I started calling myself a libertarian. I never liked the Democratic party, and GWB's presidency has really turned me against the Republicans. I also read Rand's Atlas Shrugged about two years ago. It taught me a great deal, but I ultimately rejected objectivism.

The number one thing that pushed me to where I am today is http://lewrockwell.com. It was everything I ever wanted in a political comentary website. I try to read it every day and I highly recomend it to anyone with a pulse. Lew posts a wide variety of articles by various authors on a great deal of subjects. For economics, everyone should read everything Gary North (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north-arch.html) writes. If you're new, Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.mises.org/content/mnr.asp) is probably a good place to start, although it might take half a lifetime to read everything he wrote. I also recomend Anthony Gregory and Mike Rogers.