Five myths about Libertarianism

[Foxfyre]

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'.

I wasn't attempting to impugn your methodology Foxfyre, just distill the difference down to a point that most reasonable people can understand, without getting lost in the political minutia.

To answer your question regarding the non-aggression principle and "live and let live", in my view they are quite different because the non-aggression principle underlies morality that the vast majority of people already subscribe too and can readily apply to the behavior of the state once they are able to break free of the dual morality of statist apologias. While "live and let live" implies an absence of common morality (relativistic morality) among individuals as well as the state, it simply says "do what you want as long as you leave me out of it" and ignores the moral responsibilities that we have to one another which underpin human society.

Live and let live does not mean that to me. On several different threads now I have argued long and hard for the concept of social contract by which people with mutual goals and a shared morality can work together and create whatever sort of society they wish to have. I believe that was the Founders' intent.

But the freedom to live my life and to share mutual goals, virtues, responsibilities with those of similar priorities and values must of necessity allow others to live a different lifestyle if they so choose. No matter how superior I believe my sense of virtue to be, if I am given power to dictate that to you, there is no freedom for either of us.

The Founders intended for the federal government to secure our rights and then leave us strictly alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wished to have. They trusted a free people to learn how to get it right. And though we made mistakes and got things wrong that had to be fixed, for the most part we did.

But freedom means that if I and my group want a Mayberry USA, we can have that. And if you and your groups want a Deadwood in its hellfire days, you can have that. That is what I mean by live and let live.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

At least 60% support restricting abortion after 20 weeks.

So?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For the less educated posters on the board, and for the curious.

1. Libertarians are a fringe band of “hippies of the right.”


2. Libertarians don’t care about minorities or the poor.


3. Libertarianism is a boys’ club.


4. Libertarians are pro-drug, pro-abortion and anti-religion.


5. Libertarians are destroying the Republican Party.

Five myths about libertarians - The Washington Post

There’s no reason anyone would take issue with this, as all five of the above are clearly false.

What isn’t a myth, however, is the fact that libertarians are for the most part naïve reactionaries.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For the less educated posters on the board, and for the curious.

That's the propaganda, isn't it? If you don't go for it, you're "less educated". When the truth is that it just doesn't work. While nearly everyone has libertarian leanings and doesn't like to be told what to do, the truly educated realize, if the more radical elements of libertarianism came to fruition, it would be a disaster on the scale of Marxism.

True.

Libertarianism, as was Marxism, is fundamentally utopian.

And a libertarian ‘system’ would indeed be a disaster, even if its more ‘moderate’ or ‘mainstream’ elements came to fruition.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

At least 60% support restricting abortion after 20 weeks.

It should be closer to 100 percent, as that’s a perfectly appropriate and reasonable restriction on the right to privacy.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Is it libertarian in principle to require certain drugs to be sold only by prescription?

Why do we have prescription drugs?

Is it your principle to say stupid things every time you post?

Never mind, the answer is clear.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

At least 60% support restricting abortion after 20 weeks.

So?

Just pointing out that your ability to throw around meaningless statistics is demonstrably useless.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the less educated posters on the board, and for the curious.

1. Libertarians are a fringe band of “hippies of the right.”


2. Libertarians don’t care about minorities or the poor.


3. Libertarianism is a boys’ club.


4. Libertarians are pro-drug, pro-abortion and anti-religion.


5. Libertarians are destroying the Republican Party.

Five myths about libertarians - The Washington Post

There’s no reason anyone would take issue with this, as all five of the above are clearly false.

What isn’t a myth, however, is the fact that libertarians are for the most part naïve reactionaries.

It is incredible how stupid you can be.

Reactionaries are, by definition, opposed to change. What on Earth makes you think that libertarians are reactionary?

 

[OnePercenter]

Ayn Rand? The one who despises libertarians and is known for her objectivist views?


Keep talking, it shows how ignorant yyou truly are regarding political philosophy.

Stupid views are stupid views whether they're yours or Rands. The fact is, we rich own your ass.

Negged for trolling, troll.

The truth sucks, doesn't it....

 

[NightFox]

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'.

I wasn't attempting to impugn your methodology Foxfyre, just distill the difference down to a point that most reasonable people can understand, without getting lost in the political minutia.

To answer your question regarding the non-aggression principle and "live and let live", in my view they are quite different because the non-aggression principle underlies morality that the vast majority of people already subscribe too and can readily apply to the behavior of the state once they are able to break free of the dual morality of statist apologias. While "live and let live" implies an absence of common morality (relativistic morality) among individuals as well as the state, it simply says "do what you want as long as you leave me out of it" and ignores the moral responsibilities that we have to one another which underpin human society.

Live and let live does not mean that to me. On several different threads now I have argued long and hard for the concept of social contract by which people with mutual goals and a shared morality can work together and create whatever sort of society they wish to have. I believe that was the Founders' intent.

But the freedom to live my life and to share mutual goals, virtues, responsibilities with those of similar priorities and values must of necessity allow others to live a different lifestyle if they so choose. No matter how superior I believe my sense of virtue to be, if I am given power to dictate that to you, there is no freedom for either of us.

The Founders intended for the federal government to secure our rights and then leave us strictly alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wished to have. They trusted a free people to learn how to get it right. And though we made mistakes and got things wrong that had to be fixed, for the most part we did.

But freedom means that if I and my group want a Mayberry USA, we can have that. And if you and your groups want a Deadwood in its hellfire days, you can have that. That is what I mean by live and let live.

Makes sense Foxfyre, thanks for taking the time to clarify.

 

[NightFox]

What isn’t a myth, however, is the fact that libertarians are for the most part naïve reactionaries.

Ah yes the old argument by adjectives, do really expect thoughtful, rational individuals to take you seriously with such drivel? Why even bother commenting if all you can offer is baseless, generalization absent insight or evidence of reason? Would it be because such inane remarks confirm your own internal bias to yourself?

 

[Pete7469]

What isn’t a myth, however, is the fact that libertarians are for the most part naïve reactionaries.

Ah yes the old argument by adjectives, do really expect thoughtful, rational individuals to take you seriously with such drivel? Why even bother commenting if all you can offer is baseless, generalization absent insight or evidence of reason? Would it be because such inane remarks confirm your own internal bias to yourself?

Notice how this bed wetter sounds just like that psuedo-republican Jackass Starkey?

 

[NightFox]

What isn’t a myth, however, is the fact that libertarians are for the most part naïve reactionaries.

Ah yes the old argument by adjectives, do really expect thoughtful, rational individuals to take you seriously with such drivel? Why even bother commenting if all you can offer is baseless, generalization absent insight or evidence of reason? Would it be because such inane remarks confirm your own internal bias to yourself?

Notice how this bed wetter sounds just like that psuedo-republican Jackass Starkey?

I couldn't say Pete, after a while the repetitious, vapid commentary just blends together to become meaningless noise, fortunately there are still thoughtful individuals around that have something worthy of consideration to offer which makes wading through all the static worthwhile.

 

[dblack]

What isn’t a myth, however, is the fact that libertarians are for the most part naïve reactionaries.

Ah yes the old argument by adjectives, do really expect thoughtful, rational individuals to take you seriously with such drivel? Why even bother commenting if all you can offer is baseless, generalization absent insight or evidence of reason? Would it be because such inane remarks confirm your own internal bias to yourself?

Notice how this bed wetter sounds just like that psuedo-republican Jackass Starkey?

Every time I see a post that features "most libertarians are ...", or "most liberals are ...", or "most conservatives are ..." - I always just read it as "I got nuthin".

 

[editec]

So after seeing how wildly different people's sense of what "Libertarianism" is, means and stands for, can we at least agree that:



Libertarianism is what EVERY person who calls themselves a libertarian say it is.

Libertarianism means everything or it means nothing depending on the libertarian you're addressing.

Libertarianism has all the consistency of water, and can fit into any container wishing to hold it.

 

[dblack]

So after seeing how wildly different people's sense of what "Libertarianism" is, means and stands for, can we at least agree that:

Libertarianism is what EVERY person who calls themselves a libertarian say it is.

Libertarianism means everything or it means nothing depending on the libertarian you're addressing.

Libertarianism has all the consistency of water, and can fit into any container wishing to hold it.

But that's an empty observation, and can be said of any political philosophy with more than three adherents. In point of fact, libertarianism is far more consistent and coherent than anything flying under the 'liberal' or 'conservative' banner.

It's fair to say that, as the libertarian movement grows, it will become more diffuse, but it has the advantage of clearly defined core principles (namely, private property and non-aggression). That makes for an ideology that is more egalitarian; anyone with a basic grasp of logic can extrapolate libertarian positions from those core principles. The liberal and conservative 'philosophies', on the other hand, don't have that kind of clear foundation, and depend on the pronouncements of their respective political elites. That's why these ideologies blow with the wind. Policies that are 'conservative' one day (the individual mandate comes to mind) are 'liberal' when a new regime takes over, because party leadership says so.

We can have debates over libertarian positions because of the clearly defined core values. There will be disagreement, of course, because different people apply logic differently - and with differing degrees of competency. But you can't even have these kinds of arguments about liberalism or conservatism because they lack a common starting place. There's nothing solid to hang your hat on when trying to show that any given policy is liberal or conservative.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There's nothing solid to hang your hat on when trying to show that any given policy is liberal or conservative.

Sure you can. Special interest groups, coorporatism and authoritarianism are the foundations of these political parties. They differ only in degree by which they wish to use force and violence, theft and/or coercion depending on a specific issue. there is absolutely no social challenge or issue with which can not be solved by government under these umbrellas.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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'.

Abortion is sacred to you democrats. it is considered the pinnacle of human achievement and what everyone should aspire to.

But you must remember that you democrats are both stupid and deranged. Abortion does not define Libertarians - it is left to each person to decide on their own.

 

[thanatos144]

You think? What similarities do you see? I'm afraid I don't see ANY similitaries other than maybe their choice in music or movies or such as that.

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.

Lie to your self all you want but the MAJORITY of those calling themselves libertarians have the same stand as progressives on MOST issues.