Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sex, Drugs, Abortion, Foreign policy, Size of government (one want huge state government the other huger federal), Resp0onsibility, Religion and about everything BUT taxes.
Libertarians, as a group, take no position on sex other than it is none of the federal government's business. Liberals want government to set the rules liberals want re sex and how it is expressed.
Libertarians, as a group, take no official position on abortion other than it should be a local matter of conscience and the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate it in any way. Liberals want the federal government to make abortion legal everywhere for everybody, period.
Libertarians, as a group, take no official position on foreign policy other than the federal government should be strictly limited to its constitutional authority when it comes to foreign policy. Liberals put no constitutional restrictions on much of anything.
Libertarians, as a group, take no official position on drugs other than it is appropriate for the federal government to have some oversight over safety issues re imported products, but the legalization and use of drugs by the people should be decided at the local level. Those states or communities who want them should be able to have them. Those that don't should be able to make them illegal. The federal government should stay out of that. Liberals want the federal government to have total control.
Libertarians take the view that those who want religious symbols, displays, and other religious expression should be free to have them. Those who don't want them should be able to have a socail contract that keeps them out of the public venue. The federal government cannot dictate any matters of religion and has no constitutional authority to interfere with that. Many anti-religious liberals would have the federal government remove all religious evidence from everything.
Libertarians believe people should be allowed to do whatever they choose to be or do so long as it requires no contribution or participation by any others. Liberals do not trust people to make all their own choices and want the federal government to be in charge of much of that.
Liberals want government to be their protector, safety net, mommy, daddy, and available teat if they get into any kind of difficulty. Libertarians see a government that can solve our problems as a government that can and will take anything it wants from us and therefore wants people to work out their own solutions to their problems and deal with the consequences of the choices they make.
Libertarians want the federal government to be restricted to its constitutionally mandated functions and be involved in absolutely nothing else.
I see no similarities of any kind between modern American liberals and libertarians.
IMHO You're devolving into an issues based tit-for-tat here Foxfyre, the fundamental difference between libertarians and modern "liberals" (or any other flavor of pro-statist ideology) is the libertarian belief in the principle of non-aggression and that it applies both to the individual AND the state. The modern "liberal" believes that the morality of the individual is separate from that of the state and thus the state is justified in using aggressive force (violence) to achieve it's goals while the individual is not, the libertarian believes that neither the individual nor the state is justified in initiating force to achieve it's goals. The use of force in the libertarian view is only justified by either party to protect the life, liberty and/or property of the citizenry.
It's really not a very complicated concept at it's core, however it can spawn a beautifully complex range of conclusions regarding any particular public policy question.
Libertarians, as a group, take no position on sex other than it is none of the federal government's business. Liberals want government to set the rules liberals want re sex and how it is expressed.
Libertarians, as a group, take no official position on abortion other than it should be a local matter of conscience and the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate it in any way. Liberals want the federal government to make abortion legal everywhere for everybody, period.
Libertarians, as a group, take no official position on foreign policy other than the federal government should be strictly limited to its constitutional authority when it comes to foreign policy. Liberals put no constitutional restrictions on much of anything.
Libertarians, as a group, take no official position on drugs other than it is appropriate for the federal government to have some oversight over safety issues re imported products, but the legalization and use of drugs by the people should be decided at the local level. Those states or communities who want them should be able to have them. Those that don't should be able to make them illegal. The federal government should stay out of that. Liberals want the federal government to have total control.
Libertarians take the view that those who want religious symbols, displays, and other religious expression should be free to have them. Those who don't want them should be able to have a socail contract that keeps them out of the public venue. The federal government cannot dictate any matters of religion and has no constitutional authority to interfere with that. Many anti-religious liberals would have the federal government remove all religious evidence from everything.
Libertarians believe people should be allowed to do whatever they choose to be or do so long as it requires no contribution or participation by any others. Liberals do not trust people to make all their own choices and want the federal government to be in charge of much of that.
Liberals want government to be their protector, safety net, mommy, daddy, and available teat if they get into any kind of difficulty. Libertarians see a government that can solve our problems as a government that can and will take anything it wants from us and therefore wants people to work out their own solutions to their problems and deal with the consequences of the choices they make.
Libertarians want the federal government to be restricted to its constitutionally mandated functions and be involved in absolutely nothing else.
I see no similarities of any kind between modern American liberals and libertarians.
IMHO You're devolving into an issues based tit-for-tat here Foxfyre, the fundamental difference between libertarians and modern "liberals" (or any other flavor of pro-statist ideology) is the libertarian belief in the principle of non-aggression and that it applies both to the individual AND the state. The modern "liberal" believes that the morality of the individual is separate from that of the state and thus the state is justified in using aggressive force (violence) to achieve it's goals while the individual is not, the libertarian believes that neither the individual nor the state is justified in initiating force to achieve it's goals. The use of force in the libertarian view is only justified by either party to protect the life, liberty and/or property of the citizenry.
It's really not a very complicated concept at it's core, however it can spawn a beautifully complex range of conclusions regarding any particular public policy question.
Yes, most of these issues are not always strictly black or white but can sometimes include shades of gray that allow principle to override ideology. But the purpose of my post was to make the argument that libertarianism and modern American liberalism have nothing in common. I just used the issues Thanatos threw out there, at my request, to make the point.
I haven't thought of it in terms of aggression and non-aggression though and will think that one through. For me it is live and let live which maybe is the same thing just said differently?
In my view libertarianism is the freedom to do what is right and smart and edifying to me whether others agree or not. But there is no freedom if people are also not free to do what is wrong or stupid or destructive.
What people are allowed to do with impunity is measured by whether contribution or participation is required of others. If what I want to do requires you to contribute or participate in any way, I do not have any right to what I want or need. I do have the right to negotiate with you or form a social contract to accomplish my goal and it is your right to choose how much you wish to participate in that process.
Modern American liberalism would give government the power to determine what is for my own good, to have at least some control over what I should or should not be allowed to do in my own interest, and to confiscate whatever it needs/wants of my space, labor, or property for some fuzzy concept of the 'common good'.
Yes on the question of abortion, their are pro-choice libertarians and pro-life libertarians, the difference between the two is how they define "human life" or more accurately at what point it begins. Neither position however is incompatible with the principle of non-aggression, the pro-life libertarian believing that human life begins prior to birth feels that the state is justified in using force to protect the life of the unborn, the pro-choice libertarian believing that human life begins at birth doesn't believe that the state is justified in using force to violate the rights of the mother.[No professor it's more akin to claiming that Catholics and Protestants are both Christians even though they draw different conclusions from the same philosophy.
.
So you can be Libertarian on abortion either by wanting it legal and wanting it illegal? Both positions represent Libertarianism?
The reasoning of Christians on this issue is more likely to be based on religious beliefs rather than secular philosophical principle, not that a libertarian cannot be a christian and have religious objections to abortion it just in my experience that mode of reasoning is less prevalent in libertarian circles.Because there are pro-choice and anti-choice Christians.
That's inaccurate, I'm saying that in order to understand a given libertarians position on the question of abortion you need to pay attention to their reasoning on how they arrived at their particular conclusion, you know, look beneath the label and listen to the person with an open mind.All you're saying is that Libertarianism can't be meaningfully applied to the issue of abortion.
Oh, the repeater, heh?
Sure. The libertarian view is that no government involvement. While you turn around and cite case law you approve of which somehow as only ONE issue would make you libertarian.
You're just stuck on the abortion issue, aren't you? Is it because you absolutely have no clue regarding any of the other issues, or is it the meds you're on?
What kind of meds are those, anyway? Some sort of lithium or something?
Says who? I already gave you the rational for both positions and explained how they don't contradict the same philosophical wellspring, if you chose not to accept that so be it , makes no difference since it's obvious that you've already made up your mind and no amount of logic or reason is going to change that.Yes on the question of abortion, their are pro-choice libertarians and pro-life libertarians, the difference between the two is how they define "human life" or more accurately at what point it begins. Neither position however is incompatible with the principle of non-aggression, the pro-life libertarian believing that human life begins prior to birth feels that the state is justified in using force to protect the life of the unborn, the pro-choice libertarian believing that human life begins at birth doesn't believe that the state is justified in using force to violate the rights of the mother.So you can be Libertarian on abortion either by wanting it legal and wanting it illegal? Both positions represent Libertarianism?
The reasoning of Christians on this issue is more likely to be based on religious beliefs rather than secular philosophical principle, not that a libertarian cannot be a christian and have religious objections to abortion it just in my experience that mode of reasoning is less prevalent in libertarian circles.
That's inaccurate, I'm saying that in order to understand a given libertarians position on the question of abortion you need to pay attention to their reasoning on how they arrived at their particular conclusion, you know, look beneath the label and listen to the person with an open mind.All you're saying is that Libertarianism can't be meaningfully applied to the issue of abortion.
You can't have two libertarian positions on abortion and say they're both libertarian.
I keep citing items right out of the Libertarian Party Platform, which I assume is where the Libertarians are trying to tell ME what a libertarian is.
And yet the libertarians here, so-called, don't want to defend their own party's positions.
You trying to tell me what I believe by citing the Libertarian Party platform is no different than me quoting the Communist Party platform and telling you that is what you believe.
You are not a party.
Why does the Libertarian party have an abortion plank in its platform that so far I haven't been able to get one self-described libertarian/Libertarian around here to agree with?
Have you read it? It says:What part of that confused you? Abortion, and the broader question of the rights of children, is a subtle issue. Libertarians are much, much more consistently principled than Democrats or Republicans, but they don't walk in lock step. FWIW, I agree with the party's platform position abortion 100%. Government should stay out of the inner workings of our bodies.1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Keeping government out of abortion altogether is not a 'subtle' position on a 'subtle' issue.
That is quite clear and unequivocal. That position supports abortion being legal in all cases, at any time during a pregnancy, for any reason.
Libertarians advocate unrestrained competition which by its very nature is aggressive. Can't have no government stepping in when one competitor engages in unfair business practices. If you can't survive in a dog-eat-dog business environment, that is your problem
Aggressive doesn't equal coercive. Libertarianism relies on government that prohibits competition from resorting to coercion. It doesn't, as you repeatedly and erroneously claim, endorse unrestrained 'dog-eat-dog' competition.
You seem to be on a real mission lately to smear and distort the libertarian ethos. What gives?
Again, to the Libertarian Party platform:
All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
That is a clear and unequivocal endorsement of 'unrestrained 'dog-eat-dog' competition.
Is that not 'libertarianism'?
Again, to the Libertarian Party platform:
All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
That is a clear and unequivocal endorsement of 'unrestrained 'dog-eat-dog' competition.
Is that not 'libertarianism'?
FYI: the libertarian party platform does not define libertarianism, it is nothing more than one small group of peoples opinions on the application of (their interpretation of) libertarian philosophy. If you really want to understand libertarian philosophy I'm afraid it will take more effort and intellectual curiosity on your part than simply looking up a single political parties "platform".
Until you are willing to make such an effort then it's fairly difficult to have any meaningful exchange on the subject with you since at this point you seem only interested in attempting to construct straw men.
"Free your mind and the rest will follow" -- En Vogue
So libertarianism is really just some ethereal collection of indefinable, often contradictory, often incoherent, often incomprehensible ideas,
to which anyone with the desire to label themselves a Libertarian can attach themselves in any way shape or form they desire?
And this you peoples' idea of the political future of America? lol.
What I used to say many years ago about the Libertarians gets borne out more every day:
Libertarianism is fantasy politics - like fantasy football - a bunch of guys pretending to have a political party,
with pretend ideas and positions, and pretend candidates they pretend to run in elections.
lol, spot on.
Fine. Then tell us the libertarian view of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
You trying to tell me what I believe by citing the Libertarian Party platform is no different than me quoting the Communist Party platform and telling you that is what you believe.
You are not a party.
You agree with me, but think you scored a point against me.
what does that say about you?
It's interesting that the article itself supports the 'myth' that most Libertarians are pro-abortion:
About 30 percent of libertarians including many libertarian-minded politicians such as Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) are staunchly pro-life. But most believe that the best way to change behavior is through moral suasion, not versions of prohibition that dont work.
So a few Libertarians are pro-life, but most of them are pro-choice as far as the law goes (against 'prohibition').
Pro-choice is pro-abortion, so I've heard.
lol
It's interesting that the article itself supports the 'myth' that most Libertarians are pro-abortion:
About 30 percent of libertarians including many libertarian-minded politicians such as Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) are staunchly pro-life. But most believe that the best way to change behavior is through moral suasion, not versions of prohibition that dont work.
So a few Libertarians are pro-life, but most of them are pro-choice as far as the law goes (against 'prohibition').
Pro-choice is pro-abortion, so I've heard.
lol
Strangely enough, about 30% of the general population is pro abortion. Unfortunately, you think that means that most people support abortion, even though over 60% of the population supports restrictions on abortion.
Yes on the question of abortion, their are pro-choice libertarians and pro-life libertarians, the difference between the two is how they define "human life" or more accurately at what point it begins. Neither position however is incompatible with the principle of non-aggression, the pro-life libertarian believing that human life begins prior to birth feels that the state is justified in using force to protect the life of the unborn, the pro-choice libertarian believing that human life begins at birth doesn't believe that the state is justified in using force to violate the rights of the mother.So you can be Libertarian on abortion either by wanting it legal and wanting it illegal? Both positions represent Libertarianism?
The reasoning of Christians on this issue is more likely to be based on religious beliefs rather than secular philosophical principle, not that a libertarian cannot be a christian and have religious objections to abortion it just in my experience that mode of reasoning is less prevalent in libertarian circles.
That's inaccurate, I'm saying that in order to understand a given libertarians position on the question of abortion you need to pay attention to their reasoning on how they arrived at their particular conclusion, you know, look beneath the label and listen to the person with an open mind.All you're saying is that Libertarianism can't be meaningfully applied to the issue of abortion.
You can't have two libertarian positions on abortion and say they're both libertarian.
That's meaningless, no matter how you frame it. It's possible perhaps for someone to consider themselves on balance a libertarian but in the case of abortion be anti- or non- libertarian,
but you certainly cannot say any view on abortion is 'libertarian' just for the sake of giving someone who wants to outlaw all abortion from the time of conception some sort of libertarian escape clause,
based on his 'reasoning'.
You are not a party.
You agree with me, but think you scored a point against me.
what does that say about you?
But I dont....why do you lie
Fine. Then tell us the libertarian view of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
It's there so the federal government can prevent states from instigating trade wars or otherwise disrupting trade with onerous tariffs and burdensome regulation. That's why it was framed as the power to regulate "interstate" state trade, and not trade in general. It was certainly never intended for the horseshit it's used to justify today (like forcing individuals to buy health insurance). I think libertarians are fairly consistent on this.
It's interesting that the article itself supports the 'myth' that most Libertarians are pro-abortion:
About 30 percent of libertarians including many libertarian-minded politicians such as Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) are staunchly pro-life. But most believe that the best way to change behavior is through moral suasion, not versions of prohibition that dont work.
So a few Libertarians are pro-life, but most of them are pro-choice as far as the law goes (against 'prohibition').
Pro-choice is pro-abortion, so I've heard.
lol
Strangely enough, about 30% of the general population is pro abortion. Unfortunately, you think that means that most people support abortion, even though over 60% of the population supports restrictions on abortion.
At least 60% of Americans do not want to see Roe v Wade repealed which means that by a solid majority,
most Americans support abortion.
Fine. Then tell us the libertarian view of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
It's there so the federal government can prevent states from instigating trade wars or otherwise disrupting trade with onerous tariffs and burdensome regulation. That's why it was framed as the power to regulate "interstate" state trade, and not trade in general. It was certainly never intended for the horseshit it's used to justify today (like forcing individuals to buy health insurance). I think libertarians are fairly consistent on this.
No actually whoever put together the Libertarian party platform thinks the government should not regulate trade at all.
Says who? I already gave you the rational for both positions and explained how they don't contradict the same philosophical wellspring, if you chose not to accept that so be it , makes no difference since it's obvious that you've already made up your mind and no amount of logic or reason is going to change that.Yes on the question of abortion, their are pro-choice libertarians and pro-life libertarians, the difference between the two is how they define "human life" or more accurately at what point it begins. Neither position however is incompatible with the principle of non-aggression, the pro-life libertarian believing that human life begins prior to birth feels that the state is justified in using force to protect the life of the unborn, the pro-choice libertarian believing that human life begins at birth doesn't believe that the state is justified in using force to violate the rights of the mother.
The reasoning of Christians on this issue is more likely to be based on religious beliefs rather than secular philosophical principle, not that a libertarian cannot be a christian and have religious objections to abortion it just in my experience that mode of reasoning is less prevalent in libertarian circles.
That's inaccurate, I'm saying that in order to understand a given libertarians position on the question of abortion you need to pay attention to their reasoning on how they arrived at their particular conclusion, you know, look beneath the label and listen to the person with an open mind.
You can't have two libertarian positions on abortion and say they're both libertarian.
Have a nice day.
It's there so the federal government can prevent states from instigating trade wars or otherwise disrupting trade with onerous tariffs and burdensome regulation. That's why it was framed as the power to regulate "interstate" state trade, and not trade in general. It was certainly never intended for the horseshit it's used to justify today (like forcing individuals to buy health insurance). I think libertarians are fairly consistent on this.
No actually whoever put together the Libertarian party platform thinks the government should not regulate trade at all.
No, they think the government should try to gum it up by helping.
