NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think it is time for a Libertarian President in 2008 in the USA, apart from the American Libertarian Party which republican or democratic politician do you consider a Libertarian and why?

What kind of specific economic, political and social policy would they favor?

I invite the Libertarian NS Nations from the USA, Europe and other regions to participate strongly on this thread.

Which European, Canadian, Australian, New Zeeland or other nation's politician do you consider a Libertarian and why?

Yeah, as an LP member, I'd like to see a Libertarian elected to the presidency.

Congressman Ron Paul's quite libertarian minded.

I'd like to see Social Security and welfare dismantled, some serious tax cuts, drugs legalized, and measures to protect Second Amendment rights.

What about Foreign Policy in general, and Post Nations and Libertarian Foreign Policy to those Nations?

Especially from a Libertarian USA President.

Libertarian NS Nations from any region of the world
can answer this question?

What about Foreign Policy in general, and Post Nations and Libertarian Foreign Policy to those Nations?

Especially from a Libertarian USA President.

Libertarian NS Nations from any region of the world
can answer this question?

Free trade, free trade, free trade. And since libertarians hate to tax and spend, I imagine some sort of decrease or outright elimination of foreign aid would be in order.

I dont know about Libertarian president precisely, but I think all "third" parties should be given equal opportunity to debate on the same scale as the two major parties.

It's about time somebody from the LP gets into office - I'd so vote for Ron Paul if he ran.

Is libertanian ... communism?

Is libertanian ... communism?
*cough*oxymoronic*cough*

I seriously doubt it, and hope not.

Is libertanian ... communism?

It was originally short for Libertarian Communism (see: Spanish Civil War and the CNT) but ther term has been bastardised by American capitalists.

A Libertarian president? While I'm sure that we could use someone different in office other than the watered-down Democrats and Republicans, I'm not certain Libertarian is the way to go.

We have a HUGE deficit, and it's only gonna get larger until Bush is out of office. Higher taxes are going to be a natural result, and obviously a Libertarian wouldn't take that route, and lead us further into debt.

A Libertarian president? While I'm sure that we could use someone different in office other than the watered-down Democrats and Republicans, I'm not certain Libertarian is the way to go.

We have a HUGE deficit, and it's only gonna get larger until Bush is out of office. Higher taxes are going to be a natural result, and obviously a Libertarian wouldn't take that route, and lead us further into debt.

Perhaps cutting spending would reduce the deficit, eh?

Is libertanian ... communism?

no libertarianism is kind of anarco-capitalism with some semblence of government still around to run the police etc but pretty much everything is left to the individual
its a mix of some radially left wing policies like legalise all drugs
and of radically right wing policies like destroy the welfare state.

communism has an extensive welfare state by definition

Perhaps cutting spending would reduce the deficit, eh?
Imagine that? I see one massive, bloated, military budget that could use cutting.

Imagine that? I see one massive, bloated, military budget that could use cutting.

Exactly, and the ENTIRE department of education, and the ENTIRE department of energy, and the ENTIRE department of vetern affairs.

Cut most of Medicaid and Medicare, devolve it down to the states. Hundereds of billions of dollars could be cut from the federal budget.

Exactly, and the ENTIRE department of education, and the ENTIRE department of energy, and the ENTIRE department of vetern affairs.

Cut most of Medicaid and Medicare, devolve it down to the states. Hundereds of billions of dollars could be cut from the federal budget.
Hahaha. That's a good one. You do realize that cutting money from the Department of Education would only move the burden to the states, which wouldn't 'cut' any money. You'd still pay the same amount. Same for the department of veteran affairs, except that's like saying that no one has a right to a pension.

Hahaha. That's a good one. You do realize that cutting money from the Department of Education would only move the burden to the states, which wouldn't 'cut' any money. You'd still pay the same amount. Same for the department of veteran affairs, except that's like saying that no one has a right to a pension.

Yes, thats the point. Devolve many things now handled by the federal government back to the states, where it should be.

And yes, everyone does have a right to a pension, and medical aid. I just dont think the federal government should handle it.

Yes, thats the point. Devolve many things now handled by the federal government back to the states, where it should be.

On what grounds? Government is government, a true libertarian would argue for the complete elimination of all public education.

And yes, everyone does have a right to a pension, and medical aid. I just dont think the federal government should handle it.
Even when the federal government is the employer?

It was originally short for Libertarian Communism (see: Spanish Civil War and the CNT) but ther term has been bastardised by American capitalists.

Fair's fair you bloody commies stole the term liberal deacades ago. Lookup 'cclassical liberal' then Libertarian, find three substantial differences. We're holding your word hostage until you give ours back.

Fair's fair you bloody commies stole the term liberal deacades ago.

*whispers*

Pssst, you can have it...we never wanted it. In fact, we already call you neo-liberals.

On what grounds? Government is government, a true libertarian would argue for the complete elimination of all public education.


Honestly, I do not consider myself a Libertarian in the truest sense. I'm more of a Progressive Libertarian. I favor the reduction and elimination of government control where practical.

Honestly, I do not consider myself a Libertarian in the truest sense. I'm more of a Progressive Libertarian. I favor the reduction and elimination of government control where practical.
So you advocate a disparity in education through a difference in standards and funding, rather then a disparity in education through a complete lack of a schooling system?

Either way, you're still screwing over the poorer areas considerably.

So you advocate a disparity in education through a difference in standards and funding, rather then a disparity in education through a complete lack of a schooling system?

Either way, you're still screwing over the poorer areas considerably.


That is what is happening now. I fail to see how removing the federal govenrnment from the educational picture will make it any worse.

That is what is happening now. I fail to see how removing the federal govenrnment from the educational picture will make it any worse.
With the federal system there is a chance at reform, as they have the power to enforce standards and provide extra funding to the poorer districts, something that the states often can not or refuse to do.

*whispers*

Pssst, you can have it...we never wanted it. In fact, we already call you neo-liberals.

Nah we are'nt taking that neo-liberal monicer. That's a cheap slander attempt to associate our boys with the neo-cons. Not having it. We're the origional, The real deal, the old firm. You owe me for the years I spent at protests telling consrevatives off when they said we were a bunch of socialists. So you guys have to give the word back and come out of the closet and call yourselves socialists. None of this 'progressive' B.S. And we're holding Libertarian hostage until you concede. We might start sending you fingers just to let you know we're serious.

America doesn't need a libertarian government any more than any country ever formed even though it is a democracy.

Government's primary purpose is not to represent the people and bend to its wishes. Likewise though, the people are not to obsess their livelihood with the existence of their government.

Is it time for an American president that's willing to downsize government in order to get it out of our lives?

Yes.

Many Americans today are upset that they can't get the quality life they've always wanted and they're being cheated some how or another by either the government or someone that uses political leverage in order to have his will instilled upon others. A survivalist government would eliminate many loopholes and would address issues directly rather that deterring them and pushing them off.

Many libertarians are confused over what they would like out of government. Some say that they think government should become more involved in people's lives so in can give them a helping hand to get started. The fact is there are plenty of programs and grants out there that can get you started on whatever project you need since there are already plenty of libertarians in congress intent on letting lobbyists get their piece of the pie.

http://www.grants.gov/

Does increasing government's size solve the problem.

No.

By now you might be thinking of me as a Reaganite, yet Reagan was a libertarian President. He believed in keeping the government out of people's hair so they could do what they wanted to do WITHIN THE LAW (law is a non-germane topic here).

A survivalist president would review internal affairs much more closely in order to eliminate special interests while reallocating attention towards problems that matter. For example: MANY MANY Americans wonder why the government wasn't there sooner in preparation for hurricane Katrina. The reason is because there is too much bickering currently in government for resources to be allocated towards that which matters. Why hasn't there been a Department ready in case of natural disasters?

There has. It's called FEMA. http://www.fema.gov/

The reason though for why we weren't there is because people are obsessed with special cases DISGUISED as being anti-libertarian. If the military wanted to build military or civilian bases that would be built in areas deemed as flood and hurricane prone what would happen?

The ACLU would come in saying that the government did something wrong that was insignificant such as built 3 feet over a property line, in an incorrectly zoned area, dismissed an environmentally sensitive community's claim, etc.

Please understand the difference between a libertarian society and a libertarian government. Government has a job to provide for the people. It doesn't have time to play unless it's corrupted or is vying for special interests. Survivalist government = freedom and liberty for people.

With the federal system there is a chance at reform, as they have the power to enforce standards and provide extra funding to the poorer districts
And we see how well that went with No Child Left Behind....

A Libertarian president? While I'm sure that we could use someone different in office other than the watered-down Democrats and Republicans, I'm not certain Libertarian is the way to go.

We have a HUGE deficit, and it's only gonna get larger until Bush is out of office. Higher taxes are going to be a natural result, and obviously a Libertarian wouldn't take that route, and lead us further into debt.
Perhaps cutting spending would reduce the deficit, eh?
Imagine that? I see one massive, bloated, military budget that could use cutting.
This is what I find odd that the Republicans and Conservitives (of Canada) pride themselves in their fiscal responsibility and actively try to discredit their opponents fiscally (spend-ocrats), yet when you look what is happening in the US the Repub's are running a huge deficit and if you look at the last consevative PM in Canada he too ran a deficit (even though the people before and after him did not). Anyone else find this wierd?

I do believe that the Libertarians would be able to manage a balanced budget (The Liberals in Canada managed too and they are becoming rather Libertarian), I would vote for the Libertarians over the Dem's and Repub's but if there was someone who was "left" available (Nader) I would vote for him first.

On what grounds? Government is government, a true libertarian would argue for the complete elimination of all public education.

Even when the federal government is the employer?

Eh, not necessarily. Most libertarians take issue with the Department of Education itself, not just public education. Libertarians interpret the US Constitution quite strictly. Since there's no provision for the creation of public education and no provision to collect taxes for such a purpose, libertarians see federal public education as unconstitutional. However, anything the federal government doesn't oversee is technically within the states' legal limits. There are more extreme libertarians--people like me, for instance--who view all taxes as an infringement upon liberty. If coercive and involuntary taxes are needed to fund public education--at the federal, state or local level--anarcho-capitalist libertarians would probably be opposed.

Honestly, I do not consider myself a Libertarian in the truest sense. I'm more of a Progressive Libertarian. I favor the reduction and elimination of government control where practical.

This irritates me. I know you mean well, but real libertarians mind when non-libertarians hijack the word and misapply it. Yes, I understand what you mean, though. You're trying to say you support liberty in certain circumstances, unless it's just more practical to infringe on it. Listen, you're either down with libertarianism or you're not. I'm tired of this "I'm a social libertarian" or "I'm an economic libertarian" stuff. Libertarianism's a philosophy that doesn't divide itself up along social or economic or political or pragmatic lines. You support liberty or you don't support liberty - no exceptions. If you are a huge free marketeer, but you think the government should intrude on social issues, then just call yourself a capitalist. You're not a libertarian because libertarianism isn't just synonymous with "hands off." If you think the government should stay out of your bedroom, but steal from your neighbor to prop up the welfare system, then call yourself a socialist who believes in sexual freedom.

As for the origin of the word libertarian:

The term "libertarian (http://www.politicalinformation.net/encyclopedia/Libertarian.htm)" was also used by anarchists as synonymous for naming their movement, so as to avoid confusion with derogatory uses of anarchy, as synonymous with anomie. Also in the aftermath of the crushing of the Paris Commune in 1871, Anarchism and Anarchists were officially outlawed for decades so anarchists were forced to call their groups and publications by another name - hence the adoption of the French word Libertaire as an alternative term for anarchist. This is the political origin of the word.

Just like the word anarchist, the word "libertarian", at least in Europe, has long been synonymous with the socialist kind of anarchists, which may be specified as libertarian socialists. On the other hand, in the United States, it was rather understood as synonymous with individualist anarchist.

That's the political origin, though. The word "libertarian" is much older and just means a "proponent of liberty." And yeah, socialist anarchists in Europe used the word. Guess what, though. Anarchism has classical liberal roots. Marx and anarcho-socialists are products of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, which is why modern libertarians and anarchists aren't too dissimilar philosophically. Yeah, American libertarians and anarcho-socialists take aspects of anarchism to completely different places, but if you ask me, the commies owe a debt to the classical liberals, not the other way around.

Eh, not necessarily. Most libertarians take issue with the Department of Education itself, not just public education. Libertarians interpret the US Constitution quite strictly. Since there's no provision for the creation of public education and no provision to collect taxes for such a purpose, libertarians see federal public education as unconstitutional. However, anything the federal government doesn't oversee is technically within the states' legal limits. There are more extreme libertarians--people like me, for instance--who view all taxes as an infringement upon liberty. If coercive and involuntary taxes are needed to fund public education--at the federal, state or local level--anarcho-capitalist libertarians would probably be opposed.

I agree with you, and find that the Libertarian Party has turned into a Constitution cult. The Constitution's only real function these days is as a political tool for one of the two parties who doesn't like what the other one is doing. The Constitution means nothing, I never signed it, you never signed it, and to claim that it should be legally binding because a bunch of old dead white guys did is ridiculous. What libertarians need is a platform from which to reason with the American voter, they need to present an honest and radical philosophy not bound up by the American legal framework.

In principle I stand opposed to voting, but if it looked like a libertarian had any chance of winning and changing things I would probably vote for him. I hope that the Republican party can become more libertarian too, but the final solutions to the problems posed by government, especially of the larger species, can't come from within government.

On the issue of education, I think a wonderful compromise would be to provide for free education only for people who can't afford it, this would create a market for education that doesn't really exist now(it's hard to compete with something that's free) it would drastically improve the quality of education in this country and make it much, much cheaper. I'm sure government schools attended by the poor children would still suck compared to private ones attended by wealthier children, but that will be the case reguardless.

On a final note, I'd like to comment on why Republicans run up deficits, the reason is simply that in order to look economically conservative they can't raise taxes and often must lower them, but they can't cut programs at all because special interest groups(to use the cliche) wield far too much political power. Farm subsidies are an obviously idiotic economic policy, and yet NO politicians republican or democrat can even talk about removing them for fear of not being elected next term. Because Republicans are incapable of raising taxes or cutting spending they run up gargantuan deficits. This is a problem inherent in our political system, cuts are impossible because groups of voters benefit from programs(at the expense of everyone not in that group) and have no incentive to vote for people to remove them. Republicans don't run up deficits because they want to, they run up deficits because they have to.

Name one Libertarian that ever won a Presidential primary ( of course they would have to be a Democrat or Republican with Libertarian views or platform . )...EVER .
Name one libertarian that ever won even ONE State durring a presidential election.

A Libertarian will NEVER be able to get elected on the Libertarian platform in the US . EVER ...never ever ever...

I agree with you, and find that the Libertarian Party has turned into a Constitution cult. The Constitution's only real function these days is as a political tool for one of the two parties who doesn't like what the other one is doing. The Constitution means nothing, I never signed it, you never signed it, and to claim that it should be legally binding because a bunch of old dead white guys did is ridiculous. What libertarians need is a platform from which to reason with the American voter, they need to present an honest and radical philosophy not bound up by the American legal framework.

In principle I stand opposed to voting, but if it looked like a libertarian had any chance of winning and changing things I would probably vote for him. I hope that the Republican party can become more libertarian too, but the final solutions to the problems posed by government, especially of the larger species, can't come from within government.

On the issue of education, I think a wonderful compromise would be to provide for free education only for people who can't afford it, this would create a market for education that doesn't really exist now(it's hard to compete with something that's free) it would drastically improve the quality of education in this country and make it much, much cheaper. I'm sure government schools attended by the poor children would still suck compared to private ones attended by wealthier children, but that will be the case reguardless.

On a final note, I'd like to comment on why Republicans run up deficits, the reason is simply that in order to look economically conservative they can't raise taxes and often must lower them, but they can't cut programs at all because special interest groups(to use the cliche) wield far too much political power. Farm subsidies are an obviously idiotic economic policy, and yet NO politicians republican or democrat can even talk about removing them for fear of not being elected next term. Because Republicans are incapable of raising taxes or cutting spending they run up gargantuan deficits. This is a problem inherent in our political system, cuts are impossible because groups of voters benefit from programs(at the expense of everyone not in that group) and have no incentive to vote for people to remove them. Republicans don't run up deficits because they want to, they run up deficits because they have to.

I'm a big fan of the written constitution in principle, but I do think each generation has the right to create a new binding and written contract with its government or simply accept the old contract until it stops working. The LP does wrap itself up in the finer points of the US Constitution, but that's because the US Constitution, in its strictest interpretation, upholds a lot of the philosophical tenets of libertarianism. I think the LP would be amenable to amending the Constitution where needed, but libertarians won't ethically abandon the principle of limiting the power of government through a written and explicit contract like a constitution.

The electoral college system only allows for two major parties to compete successfully. In other words, in order for the LP to stand a fighting chance, it'd have to replace the Republicans or Democrats. Third parties can have more indirect influence, too. Third parties can pressure the two major parties to reform their policies. The Libertarians will have to tone down their anarchical impulses and acquire some mainstream appeal. Start with something almost all Americans like: tax cuts. :)

Your compromise is interesting, but anarcho-capitalist libertarians still won't support involuntary taxes to fund public education. Moderate libertarians might if you left the responsibility of public education to the state or local level.

I really like your analysis of why Republicans run up deficits. It's true - if the Republican Party announced its intention to eliminate Social Security, most people--especially OLD people--would freak. So, Republicans maintain the social programs as though they're permanent institutions in American society. Republicans also ideologically and pragmatically support tax cuts. When you give a pass to bloated government programs, but you also insist on cutting taxes, you're going to have a deficit. As a libertarian, my solution is obviously to get rid of all the bureaucracy.

Name one Libertarian that ever won a Presidential primary ( of course they would have to be a Democrat or Republican with Libertarian views or platform . )...EVER .
Name one libertarian that ever won even ONE State durring a presidential election.

A Libertarian will NEVER be able to get elected on the Libertarian platform in the US . EVER ...never ever ever...
True, they don't have a chance unless they piggyback with the Democrats or Republicans. If they do that, they will be forced to go with the party lines that will conflict with their own views. Makes it even worse of Libertarians that their beliefs aren't widely accepted by the nation.

Do you think it is time for a Libertarian President in 2008 in the USA, apart from the American Libertarian Party which republican or democratic politician do you consider a Libertarian and why?

What kind of specific economic, political and social policy would they favor?

I invite the Libertarian NS Nations from the USA, Europe and other regions to participate strongly on this thread.
Well, I think the foreign policy mess our nation has imbedded itself into is a bit too difficult for a strictly libertarian foreign policy platform to fix. I support pretty much all of their foreign policy suggestions, with the caveat that very few of them can actually be instituted in a timely fashion.

As far as domestic policy goes, they're more or less right on the money and should be put into office post-haste, especially in light of the thorough anal raping that Bush has been perpetuating on our civil liberties for the last 5 years.

I waited for five hours in line to vote for Badnarik [i]in Ohio, which says a lot.

True, they don't have a chance unless they piggyback with the Democrats or Republicans. If they do that, they will be forced to go with the party lines that will conflict with their own views. Makes it even worse of Libertarians that their beliefs aren't widely accepted by the nation.
Not necessarily. Ron Paul seems rather consistent with his libertarian views and he's in the GOP

True, they don't have a chance unless they piggyback with the Democrats or Republicans. If they do that, they will be forced to go with the party lines that will conflict with their own views. Makes it even worse of Libertarians that their beliefs aren't widely accepted by the nation.
You’re right. The other day I was called morally corrupt and told that I lack any loyalty because of my political beliefs. I took it as a compliment, but I know that’s not what it was meant to be.

You’re right. The other day I was called morally corrupt and told that I lack any loyalty because of my political beliefs. I took it as a compliment, but I know that’s not what it was meant to be.
You gotta love the double-standard.
You're a capitalist and half of the country hates you.
You support social freedom and civil liberties and the other half of the country hates you.

You gotta love the double-standard.
You're a capitalist and half of the country hates you.
You support social freedom and civil liberties and the other half of the country hates you.
What I dislike more is when a conservative agrees with me on foreign aid or welfare and all of a sudden they think I want to go quash gay rights with them, or when a liberal thinks I want to go along with some “give away everyone’s money to other people for no reason” plan just because I said I support gay rights.