Are you a libertarian?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am and this explains why...perfectly...

It explains perfectly why ‘libertarianism’ is naïve and reactionary, why its ‘tenets’ are devoid of fact or merit, and that it is predicated solely on an errant perception of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with, and that can never be realized in the 21st Century.

 

[whitehall]

The libertarian movement was hijacked by pot heads years ago and they camouflage their top political agenda which is drug legalization with incoherent 2nd Amendment rhetoric. Unfortunately the democrat dirty tricks people also use the libertarians to try to split the republican party. Join the Tea Party if you want real conservative reform without the sneaky drug stuff. A vote for a libertarian candidate is a wasted vote.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Yeah won't be too hard after 75% of the people die from malnutrition,starvation or not being able to afford their medicines! WOOT WOOT!

What the Sam Hill are you blabbering about?

That stupid picture someone posted.

Yeah, and?

Yeah won't be too hard after 75% of the people die from malnutrition,starvation or not being able to afford their medicines! WOOT WOOT!

Wait, isn't that what happened under socialism, whereas capitalism, even under mixed-economic conditions, has brought about the the biggest explosion in wealth for everybody in the history of mankind?

ROFLMAO! So tell me more about the people starving and needing food stamps and TANF and medicaid being wealthy please...

Could you bother yourself to make just a little sense?

 

[g5000]

Always appreciate your thoughts g, whether we agree or not. Since I call myself a libertarian/classical liberal, allow me to respond with equal specificity...and let's see where the chips fall.

Let's get specific.

A Libertarian would legalize all drugs that are currently illegal. Crack, heroine, meth, pot. I would not. I would legalize pot, and that's about it.

Not exactly. A libertarian would not "legalize" drugs anymore than we would "legalize" rosemary or oregano. What we would do is suggest that any consensual activity between adults should not be subject to criminal prosecution. Stated differently, if you don't infringe on the rights of another, it shouldn't be anyone else's business.

Would this mean drugs are legalized? If we're talking about adults that haven't taken from another nor harm anyone else, a libertarian doesn't really care if they are or are not under the influence.

Semantics. You know what I meant.

Now, because we know that getting pissed drunk or stoned out of your mind can lead to foolish decisions, I would be open to the possibility of increased sentencing for those that do harm others while under the influence. Otherwise, it's your body, ingest what you like.

And this is where Libertarians and most of America part ways. Crack and heroine and meth have much, much higher dependencies than alcohol or pot. They have far more negative social consquences that more than outweigh whatever benefit they bring, if any.

A Libertarian would disband the FDA,

Correct. States are free to regulate, categorize or ban foods and drugs, but I find no provision within the enumerated powers of the Constitution to allow such meddling from the Federal government. Besides, I believe consumers and free market organizations rating the quality and effectiveness of such products would be far more efficient and helpful than bureaucrats with no threat of competition. Were states allowed to experiment with different approaches, we could see...and more importantly, choose...the best approach.

Of course, if someone is harmed with their food or drug, well, there's already plenty of laws against that.

Punishment after the fact is not preventative. As I mentioned in my first post in this topic, there are too many people who will seek the path of least resistance and who will dump toxins into our groundwater or otherwise cause destruction, as our history demonstrates in spades.

As for consumer organizations, these did not stop the poisoners and destroyers in the past, either. There is nothing to stop an industry from creating a "consumer organization" which extolls the virtues of that industry. This is quite common, in fact.

As I again pointed out in my first post, the average person does not have the time to fully investigate every product they use or food they ingest.

It is precisely because people were being poisoned by a "self-regulating" market that the people cried out for government intervention. The market brought interference on itself by not policing itself properly.

Correct. Again, states are free to regulation/oversee civilian air transportation. Personally, I think it should be the problem of private airport owners to regulate their own traffic.

Air traffic is interstate commerce, dude.

Due respect, I think that's a false comparison. It is not Pelosi who should centrally control the price of money, it's the FREE MARKET that should do so.

This libertarian stands against all forms of central price controls, be they for the price of money, the price of labor, or the price of raisins.

I am against price control as well, but that is not what I was talking about. I am talking about who controls the amount of money in the supply. I trust the Federal Reserve more than I trust a populist demogogue who will turn the printing presses to 11 every election cycle.

A Libertarian would decrease our military down to the size of a cub scout troop. I would not. I would decrease Defense spending back to Cold War levels,

I disagree with that assertion. I won't speak for all libertarians, but I think we should have the biggest, baddest, most technologically advanced military in the history of the world.

This is not the Libertarian platform.

Idon't want to "decrease" the military as much as I want to involve ourselves far less often in overseas conflicts. Stated differently, less intervention.

Does that require less spending? Probably, but more importantly, I want our military protecting our borders and keeping international waters free from piracy and open to trade. Certainly NOT a cub scout troop!

Then you and I are not far apart in this respect.

perhaps more if we would stop subsidizing the defense of our wealthiest allies and make them pay their own way. Let's see them pay for their socialized medicine and their own defense at the same time.

100% agree.

Interesting exchange, thanks.

And thanks to you as well.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think libertarians are the other side of the coin from pure socialist. Both are wrong!

 

[HelenaHandbag]

And this is where Libertarians and most of America part ways. Crack and heroine and meth have much, much higher dependencies than alcohol or pot. They have far more negative social consquences that more than outweigh whatever benefit they bring, if any.

Crack and meth would no more likely exist under decrim or legalization than does bath tub gin exist today.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am and this explains why...perfectly...

I am a libertarian. Libertarianism is a political philosophy concerned with the permissible use of force or violence. It is not a political philosophy that says limited government is the best kind of government. It is not a political philosophy that is socially liberal and economically conservative. It is not a political philosophy that says government is less efficient than the private sector. It is not a political philosophy that says freedom can be achieved by promoting some government policies over others. It is not a political philosophy that is low-tax liberalism. Libertarianism is not the absence of racism, sexism, homophobism, xenophobism, nationalism, nativism, classism, authoritarianism, patriarchy, inequality, or hierarchy. Libertarianism is not diversity or activism. Libertarianism is not egalitarianism. Libertarianism is not toleration or respect. Libertarianism is not a social attitude, lifestyle, or aesthetic sensibility.

I am a libertarian. I subscribe to the non-aggression principle that says, in the words of Murray Rothbard: “The only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another.” I am concerned with actions; I am not concerned with thoughts: I am concerned only with the negative consequences of thoughts. I believe that the non-aggression principle extends to government. Libertarians should therefore oppose or otherwise seek to limit the domestic and foreign meddling and intervention of governments, which are the greatest violators of the non-aggression principle.

I am a libertarian. I believe in the golden rule. I believe in live and let live. I believe that a person should be free to do anything he wants, as long as his conduct is peaceful. I believe that vices are not crimes.

I am a libertarian. Our enemy is the state. Our enemy is not religion, corporations, institutions, foundations, or organizations. These only have power to do us harm because of their connection with the state. And since war is the health of the state, the state’s military, wars, and foreign interventions must be opposed root and branch.

I am a libertarian. I believe in laissez faire. Anyone should be free to engage in any economic activity without license, permission, prohibition, or interference from the state. The government should not intervene in the economy in any way. Free trade agreements, educational vouchers, privatizing Social Security, etc., are not the least bit libertarian ideas.

I am a libertarian. The best government is no government. That government that governs least is the next best government. Government, as Voltaire said, at its best state is a necessary evil and at its worst state is an intolerable one. The best thing any government could do would be to simply leave us alone.

I am a libertarian. Taxation is government theft. The government doesn’t have a claim to a certain percentage of one’s income. The tax code doesn’t need to be simplified, shortened, fairer, or less intrusive. The tax rates don’t need to be made lower, flatter, fairer, equal, or less progressive. The income tax doesn’t need more or larger deductions, loopholes, shelters, credits, or exemptions. The whole rotten system needs to be abolished. People have the right to keep what they earn and decide for themselves what to do with their money: spend it, waste it, squander it, donate it, bequeath it, hoard it, invest it, burn it, gamble it.

I am a libertarian. I am not a libertine. I am not a hedonist. I am not a moral relativist. I am not a devotee of some alternative lifestyle. I am not a revolutionary. I am not a nihilist. I neither wish to associate nor aggress against those who are. I believe in the absolute freedom of association and discrimination.

I am a libertarian.

I Am a Libertarian ? LewRockwell.com

Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff.

Rothbard was a great man.

 

[g5000]

My first exposure to Libertarians was in 1977 at a Young Americans for Freedom convention in Manhattan. This was also where I met Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, Jack Kemp, and Bill Buckley for the first time.

Good times! Great parties.

I had all their autographs by the end, along with Kissinger's and other lumineries. What those would be worth today if I still had them! Bob Dole was totally cool about giving me his autograph even though I was drunk out of my mind at the time. He asked me to hold his arm up while he signed my pad. Mortified! I did not know he was crippled. His bodyguard looked like he wanted to shoot me...

Anyhoo. I took to the Libertarains right off. They gave me a ZGG button and a Laissez Faire button I wore for years.


ZGG. That's all that was on that button. ZGG.


Zero Government Growth, you see.

Wish I still had that button. A secret sign, just between us...

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I am and this explains why...perfectly...

It explains perfectly why ‘libertarianism’ is naïve and reactionary, why its ‘tenets’ are devoid of fact or merit, and that it is predicated solely on an errant perception of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with, and that can never be realized in the 21st Century.

You could not tell a libertarian from Pop Tart.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah won't be too hard after 75% of the people die from malnutrition,starvation or not being able to afford their medicines! WOOT WOOT!

What the Sam Hill are you blabbering about?

That stupid picture someone posted.

Yeah won't be too hard after 75% of the people die from malnutrition,starvation or not being able to afford their medicines! WOOT WOOT!

Wait, isn't that what happened under socialism, whereas capitalism, even under mixed-economic conditions, has brought about the the biggest explosion in wealth for everybody in the history of mankind?

ROFLMAO! So tell me more about the people starving and needing food stamps and TANF and medicaid being wealthy please...

So are you saying that the world as a whole is not better off now, where much of it has been industrialized or moved into service-oriented fields, than it was before the industrial revolution? Are you saying that poor people today are worse off, or at least no better off, than poor people then?

I would suggest that the fact that food stamps and Medicaid exist at all is because the wealth generated by the U.S. mixed-economy, which at the time of their creation leaned far more towards capitalism made them possible in the first place. There's a reason these programs didn't exist even 100 years ago.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If all those currencies were redeemable for coin of the realm, what difference would it make?

In a very real sense, we already have returned to the wild cat banking system. Credit cards, ATM cards, and electronic transfer are all issued by banks. When you hand someone your Bank of Holland Visa, it is a chit that depends on the full faith and credit of the Bank of Holland - there is no legal currency involved.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because the amount they were redeemable for was constantly changing on a daily basis. Fredbucks might be worth ten goldbacks today and only five goldbacks tomorrow. And if the local grocery story owner doesn't accept Fredbucks, or will only value them at two goldbacks, I'm fucked.

That's the way it actually was.

So, Bitcoin then?

 

[g5000]

Because the amount they were redeemable for was constantly changing on a daily basis. Fredbucks might be worth ten goldbacks today and only five goldbacks tomorrow. And if the local grocery story owner doesn't accept Fredbucks, or will only value them at two goldbacks, I'm fucked.

That's the way it actually was.

So, Bitcoin then?

A great example of a randomly walking currency that is extremely volatile. This is what Libertarians want?

 

[Uncensored2008]

A great example of a randomly walking currency that is extremely volatile. This is what Libertarians want?

I don't want to see bitcoin outlawed, that's for sure.

But I still maintain that credit and debit cards are a form of wildcat chit - not much different from bank issued currency.

 

[eflatminor]

Always appreciate your thoughts g, whether we agree or not. Since I call myself a libertarian/classical liberal, allow me to respond with equal specificity...and let's see where the chips fall.

Let's get specific.

A Libertarian would legalize all drugs that are currently illegal. Crack, heroine, meth, pot. I would not. I would legalize pot, and that's about it.

Not exactly. A libertarian would not "legalize" drugs anymore than we would "legalize" rosemary or oregano. What we would do is suggest that any consensual activity between adults should not be subject to criminal prosecution. Stated differently, if you don't infringe on the rights of another, it shouldn't be anyone else's business.

Would this mean drugs are legalized? If we're talking about adults that haven't taken from another nor harm anyone else, a libertarian doesn't really care if they are or are not under the influence.

Semantics. You know what I meant. I did. I just wanted to be clear as to my position on the matter.





And this is where Libertarians and most of America part ways. Crack and heroine and meth have much, much higher dependencies than alcohol or pot. Probably true, but that still doesn't infringe on the rights of another.They have far more negative social consquences that more than outweigh whatever benefit they bring, if any. I suppose my point is that it is not up to me...or anyone else...to determine what is and what is beneficial to another. Personally, I see not benefit, which is why I don't do drugs. You should be free to determine your own course of action.






Punishment after the fact is not preventative. Nor is the status quo. The 'war on drugs' is an abysmal failure, causing far more harm to society than any drug could. But more importantly, I do not believe it is the role of government to attempt to engineer society. That requires adherence to the vision of some at the detriment of others. Punishment is a fine role for government. Prevention should be up to families and individuals. As I mentioned in my first post in this topic, there are too many people who will seek the path of least resistance and who will dump toxins into our groundwater or otherwise cause destruction, as our history demonstrates in spades. That is then infringing on the rights of others. Against the law, as it should be.

As for consumer organizations, these did not stop the poisoners and destroyers in the past, either. Nor did government bureaucracies. There is nothing to stop an industry from creating a "consumer organization" which extolls the virtues of that industry. This is quite common, in fact. And we should be free to consider their input as well as that from independent sources.

As I again pointed out in my first post, the average person does not have the time to fully investigate every product they use or food they ingest. Then you should move to a state that heavily regulates foods and drugs, while I prefer to take the time to do my own research. Choice is the key!

It is precisely because people were being poisoned by a "self-regulating" market that the people cried out for government intervention. The market brought interference on itself by not policing itself properly. And we still have people being poisoned. My point is that free market solutions to these problems would offer superior and CERTAINLY more cost effective solutions to top-down oversight.









Air traffic is interstate commerce, dude. Which, according to the original meaning of that clause, means the Feds should prevent any state from imposing a tariff or other barrier to that commerce. The Feds overseeing the entire civilian air industry? No frickin way is that Constitutional.







I am against price control as well, but that is not what I was talking about. I am talking about who controls the amount of money in the supply. I trust the Federal Reserve more than I trust a populist demogogue who will turn the printing presses to 11 every election cycle. The prime directive of the Federal Reserve is to set interest rates, the price of money. Markets should be free to set rates as they see fit. Further, if the value of a dollar is based on something real and the value of that asset determined by the market, the money supply need not be regulated by any central planner, be it Congress or the Fed.





This is not the Libertarian platform. It is for this libertarian and many others I know and have communicated with personally.



Then you and I are not far apart in this respect. Cool...

perhaps more if we would stop subsidizing the defense of our wealthiest allies and make them pay their own way. Let's see them pay for their socialized medicine and their own defense at the same time.

100% agree.

Interesting exchange, thanks.

And thanks to you as well.

Holy shit...civil discourse. Who knew?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is it free markets unencumbered by government you dislike?

It’s not a matter of ‘dislike,’ it’s the fact that necessary and proper regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause are not only Constitutional, but ensure the integrity of the markets allowing them to flourish. See, e.g., West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941), Wickard v. Filburn (1943), Gonzales v. Raich (2005).

As with libertarianism in general, the notion that we can return to a pre-Lochner Era of ‘liberty to contract’ is naïve and reactionary; as the Supreme Court correctly observed in Parrish, the relationship between employer and employee has long been one of unequals, where the former enjoys an overwhelming advantage.

Is it you find maximum individual liberty unacceptable?

This doesn’t make any sense absent examples as to what constitutes ‘maximum individual liberty,’ otherwise the phrase is meaningless.

Is it small government you dislike?

Again, it’s not a matter of ‘dislike,’ but one of what actually constitutes ‘small government,’ where the phrase is likewise meaningless absent specific examples.

The Constitution says nothing about what ‘size’ the government should be, it neither prohibits ‘big government’ nor endorses ‘small government’; the government is currently the ‘size’ it should be to accommodate and administer to a First World, 21st Century industrialized Western nation such as the United States, that maintains a free market capitalist economy.

Or could it be you find the State controlling your life acceptable?

Let’s combine this with ‘maximum individual liberty,’ where ‘the state controlling your life’ is just as much meaningless nonsense.

Although inalienable, our civil rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by the state. See, e.g., DC v Heller (2008), where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that “[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.”

In our Constitutional Republic, therefore, where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, when the state seeks to place limits on our civil liberties, such restrictions must be rationally based, they must be supported by objective, documented evidence, and they must pursue a proper legislative end; and failing to meet these criteria, such measures are invalidated by the courts.

Likewise when the state meets its burden with regard to placing limits on our civil liberties, the people are not being ‘controlled by the state,’ rather, the people are subject to appropriate governmental policies that comport with the Constitution and its case law, where the people are at liberty to challenge the constitutionally of all laws and policies in a court of law.

Maybe its high government taxation you prefer.

‘High government taxation,’ yet another meaningless phrase without examples or a clear definition.

What constitutes ‘high,’ what’s the dollar amount, and where does the Constitution prohibit ‘high taxes,’ assuming there’ll ever be consensus as to what manifests ‘high taxes’ to begin with.

In fact, Americans pay less in taxes today than in the last 60 years:

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

Moreover, the quality of services Americans receive represents an outstanding value with regard to the taxes they pay: in maintaining roads, providing clean water, keeping food and drugs safe, and ensuring workplace safety.

In essence your post is indicative of the fundamental failure of libertarianism, where its principles are vacuous and naïve, devoid of specific examples or facts, at odds with two centuries of settled and accepted Constitutional case law – it’s ultimately a political ideology made up of bumper sticker slogans and talking point sound bites.

 

[gipper]

Nope. I do believe in a few libertarian views such as their foreign policy and a little bit on the drug issue. Other than that. No way.

Okay. So other than foreign policy and drugs, you find libertarian views unacceptable.

Is it free markets unencumbered by government you dislike?

Is it you find maximum individual liberty unacceptable?

Is it small government you dislike?

Or could it be you find the State controlling your life acceptable?

Maybe its high government taxation you prefer.

Your post is one giant fallacy of the excluded middle.

Really?

 

[eflatminor]

Wickard v. Filburn (1943)

Top 5 worst Supreme Court rulings...that is DEFINITELY one of them.

 

[gipper]

Is it free markets unencumbered by government you dislike?

It’s not a matter of ‘dislike,’ it’s the fact that necessary and proper regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause are not only Constitutional, but ensure the integrity of the markets allowing them to flourish. See, e.g., West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941), Wickard v. Filburn (1943), Gonzales v. Raich (2005).

As with libertarianism in general, the notion that we can return to a pre-Lochner Era of ‘liberty to contract’ is naïve and reactionary; as the Supreme Court correctly observed in Parrish, the relationship between employer and employee has long been one of unequals, where the former enjoys an overwhelming advantage.

Is it you find maximum individual liberty unacceptable?

This doesn’t make any sense absent examples as to what constitutes ‘maximum individual liberty,’ otherwise the phrase is meaningless.



Again, it’s not a matter of ‘dislike,’ but one of what actually constitutes ‘small government,’ where the phrase is likewise meaningless absent specific examples.

The Constitution says nothing about what ‘size’ the government should be, it neither prohibits ‘big government’ nor endorses ‘small government’; the government is currently the ‘size’ it should be to accommodate and administer to a First World, 21st Century industrialized Western nation such as the United States, that maintains a free market capitalist economy.

Or could it be you find the State controlling your life acceptable?

Let’s combine this with ‘maximum individual liberty,’ where ‘the state controlling your life’ is just as much meaningless nonsense.

Although inalienable, our civil rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by the state. See, e.g., DC v Heller (2008), where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that “[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.”

In our Constitutional Republic, therefore, where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, when the state seeks to place limits on our civil liberties, such restrictions must be rationally based, they must be supported by objective, documented evidence, and they must pursue a proper legislative end; and failing to meet these criteria, such measures are invalidated by the courts.

Likewise when the state meets its burden with regard to placing limits on our civil liberties, the people are not being ‘controlled by the state,’ rather, the people are subject to appropriate governmental policies that comport with the Constitution and its case law, where the people are at liberty to challenge the constitutionally of all laws and policies in a court of law.

Maybe its high government taxation you prefer.

‘High government taxation,’ yet another meaningless phrase without examples or a clear definition.

What constitutes ‘high,’ what’s the dollar amount, and where does the Constitution prohibit ‘high taxes,’ assuming there’ll ever be consensus as to what manifests ‘high taxes’ to begin with.

In fact, Americans pay less in taxes today than in the last 60 years:

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

Moreover, the quality of services Americans receive represents an outstanding value with regard to the taxes they pay: in maintaining roads, providing clean water, keeping food and drugs safe, and ensuring workplace safety.

In essence your post is indicative of the fundamental failure of libertarianism, where its principles are vacuous and naïve, devoid of specific examples or facts, at odds with two centuries of settled and accepted Constitutional case law – it’s ultimately a political ideology made up of bumper sticker slogans and talking point sound bites.

I see you like to get caught up in the minutiae.

I prefer to think bigger.

The government we have today is not working. It is terribly expensive, unjust, uncontrolled, warmongering, enslaving, corrupt, dangerous, etc.............

Government IS the problem. The two major political parties are too. They promote big government to keep the status quo...so they can enrich and empower themselves to the detriment of the American people.

The answer is LIBERTARIANISM.

 

[hipeter924]

Nope. Can agree with them on some things, but not all.