Five myths about Libertarianism

[FA_Q2]

I like watching liberals and libertarians fight. They never realize how close ideological they are to each other.

This is really ironic because, when you look at things with an open mind you find out really quickly that modern democrats are not like libertarians AT ALL but in reality they are just like REPUBLICANS. I found this out not to long ago right here on this very board. When I asked a simple question.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/214611-legislating-morality.html

You find that the basis of the entire libertarian thought process is, as others have stated, non-aggression and the very real concept that all government action against a non-consenting individual is inherently aggression based. From that you get the freedom loving concepts that the libertarians embrace. It interests me that someone like thantos can only see where libertarians and liberals agree (things like pot, gays and other minor subjects) but the miss that they agree with conservatives on more major issues like smaller governmental control and less regulation. This is veiled hate really at anything that is not of the party. It is only natural that there would be some issues on both sides considering libertarians are not democrats or republicans. By that very fact it is impossible for them to agree with one of those parties exclusively.

Even more interesting is that when you really delve into it, you find that democrats and republicans are almost identical in their base perception of government. What libertarians base their views on has already been stated BUT we have not talked about the dems and repubs base motivations. I think that thread I linked to was pretty clear, they BOTH feel that government should be legislating morality and defining society. It is very interesting to me that they are so damn similar in that regard. I was surprised to say the least as I had THOUGHT the right here would have agreed that such is asinine and I knew the left would completely disagree. In reality, those on the right were using the exact same justifications for their form of moral government forced on others as the left had always used. Why they are blind to the fact that the road they are going down leads to the exact same destination I do not understand. At the end of the day, it is not really the ‘corporate masters’ that have forced the parties into a fake duopoly where the outcomes are the same. No, the reasons that the parties are so similar is because the base of both those parties are so similar. It is no wonder that the left and right end up doing the same things when they are both under the perception that THEY know what is best for us all and must pass laws that dictate our moral code.

It is not the libertarians that are like the democrats, thantos. For that, all you need do is look at the party you purport to support.

 

[FA_Q2]

That's just a dodge so you people don't have to address the gaping flaws of logic, reason, and common sense that libertarianism represents.

You people are trying to tell us that libertarianism represents both pro-abortion and anti-abortion.

What the fuck is that? That's like saying in my religion, it's both a sin and not a sin to steal.

lol. Are you trying to convince us that to be a Libertarian is to stand for nothing?

No one said libertarianism respresents both of those. it's a personal issue best left to the individual involved. The doctor and patient. Libertarianism as one of it's main philosophical points, is that people are INDIVIDUALS.

I realize you come from the hive, where everyone buzzes on and on sasying the same shit and no dissent to any issue is allowed. We dont have that problem. We embrace individuals right to take responsibility for themselves and their decisions. Whether I like it or not or advocate it is entirely beside the point. it's not my decision to make, nor is it anyone elses, what some woman decides about abortion, or whether a doctor chooses to, or chooses not to perform it for their own INDIVIDUAL beliefs.

The fact you can not grasp this is of course, to no one's surprise here.

So if I support the fundamental principles of Roe v. Wade, which I do,

am I a libertarian or not?

Is it really so hard to understand that a political philosophy is NOT based on a single position. Must you agree with 100 percent of the democrat position to be a democrat? Do you really think that democrat party platforms always embody liberal ideology? Are you ready to accept, then, that the governments new spy machine is actually a democrat ideal?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

That is only because you completely misunderstand what the party platform says. You have already been told that you misinterpreted it AND what the actual interpretation is but you are completely ignoring that.

Simply put, you cannot read the damn platform correctly if you insist on viewing it with a democrat bias rather than understanding what it is that libertarains base their political convictions on. As long as you refuse to accept that libertarians base their views on a fundamental concept and not demagoguery that falls from a politician’s mouth, you will forever be unable to understand what we are trying to convey to you.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

Progressives think the government should regulate everything from war to who does business with whom. I bet you can't find anyone who calls themselves a libertarian who agrees with that.

No they just say it is a state issue.

 

[thanatos144]

Good friend will be dead in a year if we are lucky as they said 6 months 3 months ago.
Watched the baseball game at his condo tonight.
He smokes twisty and has to obtain it illegally.
And that is fucked up beyond all reason.
Because of right wing kooks that force their shit on other people without using their brain to determine if someone is suffering or not.
That is what being a Libertarian is, allowing him to do that legally.

Instead you want to force a toxic substance on people for what???? The ability to get high? The people haven't made it legal yet stop crying.

 

[thanatos144]

Okay, NOW you are arguing a point and not just spouting nonsensical platitudes. THAT is the Thanatos I have come to know and love.

But where you are making your mistake, as many do, is to equate a Political Party that has a particular agenda with a philosophy or principle or belief system which is not the same thing at all.

Most people who vote Republican are not advocates of everything on the Republican Party platform. Probably most Democrats are not advocates of everything on the Democratic Party platform. And for damn sure, most libertarians don't support everything on the Libertarian Party Platform, because the Libertarian Party makes the same mistake as the others do--wanting government to enforce their convictions rather than change hearts and minds of the people.

Most libertarians want no part of government enforcement of values and that's why many libertarians do not register as Libertarians with the Libertarian Party. Most libertarians are not members of the Libertarian Party.

And while Ron Paul is great guy and I admire him much, I, a libertarian (little "L"), think he has enough screwy and/or unsustainable ideas that I would never vote for him to be in high office. He does make a good Congressman for his district and we need men of conscience in govenment even if they are not quite presidential material.

Also I as a libertarian register Republican in my state because that is the only chance I have to make a difference in the primary elections in my state that includes opposing the liberal Democrats. I have not had any desire to join the Libertarian Party that I cannot support on some issues but there are members of that Party that I also admire and respect.

So let's do agree on one thing.

Political Party = a specific agenda.

Principles and convictions identifiable with a particular ideology may or may not agree with the agenda of a political party.

Its the people not the party? LOL Thats what I have been saying. Libertarianism is a selfish ideology. Yet some who call themselves libertarians are not selfish. Like conservatives that say they are republican. Now Libertarians are like the 60's idealists. Quite a bit of it sounds good but reality doesnt work that way. Like Marxism. No I am not saying Libertarians are communist I am saying it is like Marxism in that it looks good on paper yet in use it doesnt work. Some of it will....Yet not all of it.... You know why? People are different.

Look at the libertarians slamming me. Now we both know I like to poke at them cause they scream like little girls but look at how they are. They refuse to allow ANY differing view put forward. When it happens they personalize and attack. They scream that you dont know shit! you are a NeoCon! A authoritarian ! It is as if others are not allowed to state the obvious.

Libertarianism (little "L") is not at all selfish. What is selfish about wanting people to have power over their own choices and destiny? And what further makes libertarians unselfish is that of all the philosophical groups, they are the most likely to recognize and identify unintended negative consequences. Liberals fancy themselves the most generous and altruistic of all the groups, and yet by selfishly promoting the society THEY think best, they are unwilling to acknowledge or address the unintended consequences of that very promotion. And of all groups they are the most likely to harm those they think or report they are helping.

That the libertarian recognizes that the fairest, most altruistic, most beneficial society is one in which the people are most free and most unhindered by self serving authoritarian government is not selfish. It is honest.

Your confusing the idealism with the reality.... Nothing is wrong with having more freedoms. Except we live in a republic where states choose how much that is and libertarians seem to want to force THEIR freedoms on everyone and consequences be damned.

 

[thanatos144]

I like watching liberals and libertarians fight. They never realize how close ideological they are to each other.

This is really ironic because, when you look at things with an open mind you find out really quickly that modern democrats are not like libertarians AT ALL but in reality they are just like REPUBLICANS. I found this out not to long ago right here on this very board. When I asked a simple question.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/214611-legislating-morality.html

You find that the basis of the entire libertarian thought process is, as others have stated, non-aggression and the very real concept that all government action against a consenting individual is inherently aggression based. From that you get the freedom loving concepts that the libertarians embrace. It interests me that someone like thantos can only see where libertarians and liberals agree (things like pot, gays and other minor subjects) but the miss that they agree with conservatives on more major issues like smaller governmental control and less regulation. This is veiled hate really at anything that is not of the party. It is only natural that there would be some issues on both sides considering libertarians are not democrats or republicans. By that very fact it is impossible for them to agree with one of those parties exclusively.

Even more interesting is that when you really delve into it, you find that democrats and republicans are almost identical in their base perception of government. What libertarians base their views on has already been stated BUT we have not talked about the dems and repubs base motivations. I think that thread I linked to was pretty clear, they BOTH feel that government should be legislating morality and defining society. It is very interesting to me that they are so damn similar in that regard. I was surprised to say the least as I had THOUGHT the right here would have agreed that such is asinine and I knew the left would completely disagree. In reality, those on the right were using the exact same justifications for their form of moral government forced on others as the left had always used. Why they are blind to the fact that the road they are going down leads to the exact same destination I do not understand. At the end of the day, it is not really the ‘corporate masters’ that have forced the parties into a fake duopoly where the outcomes are the same. No, the reasons that the parties are so similar is because the base of both those parties are so similar. It is no wonder that the left and right end up doing the same things when they are both under the perception that THEY know what is best for us all and must pass laws that dictate our moral code.

It is not the libertarians that are like the democrats, thantos. For that, all you need do is look at the party you purport to support.

You dont think legalizing drug and cut and running isn't legislating morality?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one said libertarianism respresents both of those. it's a personal issue best left to the individual involved. The doctor and patient. Libertarianism as one of it's main philosophical points, is that people are INDIVIDUALS.

I realize you come from the hive, where everyone buzzes on and on sasying the same shit and no dissent to any issue is allowed. We dont have that problem. We embrace individuals right to take responsibility for themselves and their decisions. Whether I like it or not or advocate it is entirely beside the point. it's not my decision to make, nor is it anyone elses, what some woman decides about abortion, or whether a doctor chooses to, or chooses not to perform it for their own INDIVIDUAL beliefs.

The fact you can not grasp this is of course, to no one's surprise here.

So if I support the fundamental principles of Roe v. Wade, which I do,

am I a libertarian or not?

Is it really so hard to understand that a political philosophy is NOT based on a single position. Must you agree with 100 percent of the democrat position to be a democrat? Do you really think that democrat party platforms always embody liberal ideology? Are you ready to accept, then, that the governments new spy machine is actually a democrat ideal?

Remind me of this post the next time the Republican Party nominates a pro-choice candidate for president.

Let me frame my question differently.

Is supporting the principles of Roe v. Wade in keeping with the principles of libertarianism,

and if not, why not?

and if not, what position on abortion best represents libertarian principles?

 

[dblack]

You dont think legalizing drug and cut and running isn't legislating morality?

Ok... i try not to step in the thanatos, I really do, but this is too hilarious to pass up. You're saying legalizing something is 'legislating morality'? Do other people think this way? Anybody?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Progressives think the government should regulate everything from war to who does business with whom. I bet you can't find anyone who calls themselves a libertarian who agrees with that.

What percent of Americans would you estimate believe that business should not in any way be regulated?

 

[editec]

I think some of you are under the mistaken impression that we can have a government but one that somehow does not legislate morality and society.

How exactly does that work?

Every law every regulation represents SOME KIND of moral value.

There is simply no way to avoid the reality that governments and their laws are the codification of the value system of the society they represent.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Its the people not the party? LOL Thats what I have been saying. Libertarianism is a selfish ideology. Yet some who call themselves libertarians are not selfish. Like conservatives that say they are republican. Now Libertarians are like the 60's idealists. Quite a bit of it sounds good but reality doesnt work that way. Like Marxism. No I am not saying Libertarians are communist I am saying it is like Marxism in that it looks good on paper yet in use it doesnt work. Some of it will....Yet not all of it.... You know why? People are different.

Look at the libertarians slamming me. Now we both know I like to poke at them cause they scream like little girls but look at how they are. They refuse to allow ANY differing view put forward. When it happens they personalize and attack. They scream that you dont know shit! you are a NeoCon! A authoritarian ! It is as if others are not allowed to state the obvious.

Libertarianism (little "L") is not at all selfish. What is selfish about wanting people to have power over their own choices and destiny? And what further makes libertarians unselfish is that of all the philosophical groups, they are the most likely to recognize and identify unintended negative consequences. Liberals fancy themselves the most generous and altruistic of all the groups, and yet by selfishly promoting the society THEY think best, they are unwilling to acknowledge or address the unintended consequences of that very promotion. And of all groups they are the most likely to harm those they think or report they are helping.

That the libertarian recognizes that the fairest, most altruistic, most beneficial society is one in which the people are most free and most unhindered by self serving authoritarian government is not selfish. It is honest.

Your confusing the idealism with the reality.... Nothing is wrong with having more freedoms. Except we live in a republic where states choose how much that is and libertarians seem to want to force THEIR freedoms on everyone and consequences be damned.

The problem with Libertarianism is related to what I pointed out earlier. What would libertarians do if they really had the kind of power in government that on occasions both the Democrats or the Republicans have had.

We have no idea how libertarianism would manifest itself in a real world scenario because it is a fringe group that can never muster enough popular support to ever actually be put in a position to govern.

That is why, I think, they are throwing tantrums in this thread every time I bring up the Libertarian Party platform...

...even libertarians can't cope with the idea of the Libertarian Party being a real party, that has to take real stands on real issues and potentially make real policy and real legislation in that regard.

Libertarianism is an idle fantasy.

 

[NightFox]

So if I support the fundamental principles of Roe v. Wade, which I do,

am I a libertarian or not?

Is it really so hard to understand that a political philosophy is NOT based on a single position. Must you agree with 100 percent of the democrat position to be a democrat? Do you really think that democrat party platforms always embody liberal ideology? Are you ready to accept, then, that the governments new spy machine is actually a democrat ideal?

Remind me of this post the next time the Republican Party nominates a pro-choice candidate for president.

Let me frame my question differently.

Is supporting the principles of Roe v. Wade in keeping with the principles of libertarianism,

and if not, why not?

It's a non sequitur, the rational for the Roe vs. Wade decision was based on a Constitutional interpretation not on the principle of non-aggression, the fact that some libertarians basing their reasoning on the principle of non-aggression arrived at a conclusion that coincides with Roe vs. Wade is coincidental.

and if not, what position on abortion best represents libertarian principles?

You've already been told numerous times that the answer is neither because you have two rational conclusions drawn from the same principle. I really don't understand why you keep asking the same question hoping to get a different answer.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

 

[dblack]

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

Progressives think the government should regulate everything from war to who does business with whom. I bet you can't find anyone who calls themselves a libertarian who agrees with that.

What percent of Americans would you estimate believe that business should not in any way be regulated?

Let's not equivocate, eh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think some of you are under the mistaken impression that we can have a government but one that somehow does not legislate morality and society.

How exactly does that work?

Every law every regulation represents SOME KIND of moral value.

There is simply no way to avoid the reality that governments and their laws are the codification of the value system of the society they represent.

Nobody is really against legislating morality. Mostly they're just against the other guy legislating morality they don't agree with.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Progressives think the government should regulate everything from war to who does business with whom. I bet you can't find anyone who calls themselves a libertarian who agrees with that.

What percent of Americans would you estimate believe that business should not in any way be regulated?

Let's not equivocate, eh?

The statement I replied to claimed that there are no libertarians who want to regulate business.

I'd like an estimate of how many people that represents. How many people want no business regulation?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Progressives think the government should regulate everything from war to who does business with whom. I bet you can't find anyone who calls themselves a libertarian who agrees with that.

What percent of Americans would you estimate believe that business should not in any way be regulated?

Let's not equivocate, eh?

How many things that go on, of any consequence, in life can you say you do not want regulated in any way?

 

[thanatos144]

You dont think legalizing drug and cut and running isn't legislating morality?

Ok... i try not to step in the thanatos, I really do, but this is too hilarious to pass up. You're saying legalizing something is 'legislating morality'? Do other people think this way? Anybody?

Yes it is.... Whats sad is your to dishonest and partisan to admit it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is it really so hard to understand that a political philosophy is NOT based on a single position. Must you agree with 100 percent of the democrat position to be a democrat? Do you really think that democrat party platforms always embody liberal ideology? Are you ready to accept, then, that the governments new spy machine is actually a democrat ideal?

Remind me of this post the next time the Republican Party nominates a pro-choice candidate for president.

Let me frame my question differently.

Is supporting the principles of Roe v. Wade in keeping with the principles of libertarianism,

and if not, why not?

It's a non sequitur, the rational for the Roe vs. Wade decision was based on a Constitutional interpretation not on the principle of non-aggression, the fact that some libertarians basing their reasoning on the principle of non-aggression arrived at a conclusion that coincides with Roe vs. Wade is coincidental.

and if not, what position on abortion best represents libertarian principles?

You've already been told numerous times that the answer is neither because you have two rational conclusions drawn from the same principle. I really don't understand why you keep asking the same question hoping to get a different answer.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

So it's libertarian to want a constitutional amendment to ban all abortion, if you happen to be a 'libertarian' who believes life (with personhood rights) begins at conception.

Okay.

So I guess you could also be a libertarian who suppports a massive defense budget for the US if you happen to believe that such defense is necessary to protect our safety, lives, wellbeing, etc.

Or, I guess you could also be a libertarian who supports a massive federal presence in the regulation of trade/business if you happen to believe that heavy regulation is necessary to protect our safety, lives, wellbeing, etc.

Should I go on?

 

[NightFox]

Libertarianism (little "L") is not at all selfish. What is selfish about wanting people to have power over their own choices and destiny? And what further makes libertarians unselfish is that of all the philosophical groups, they are the most likely to recognize and identify unintended negative consequences. Liberals fancy themselves the most generous and altruistic of all the groups, and yet by selfishly promoting the society THEY think best, they are unwilling to acknowledge or address the unintended consequences of that very promotion. And of all groups they are the most likely to harm those they think or report they are helping.

That the libertarian recognizes that the fairest, most altruistic, most beneficial society is one in which the people are most free and most unhindered by self serving authoritarian government is not selfish. It is honest.

Your confusing the idealism with the reality.... Nothing is wrong with having more freedoms. Except we live in a republic where states choose how much that is and libertarians seem to want to force THEIR freedoms on everyone and consequences be damned.

The problem with Libertarianism is related to what I pointed out earlier. What would libertarians do if they really had the kind of power in government that on occasions both the Democrats or the Republicans have had.

We have no idea how libertarianism would manifest itself in a real world scenario because it is a fringe group that can never muster enough popular support to ever actually be put in a position to govern.

You appear to have a seriously skewed view of the world in which politics should determine principles, the objective of libertarianism isn't to gain power over others (which is the essence of politics) in fact it is exactly the opposite. Libertarians practice rational humility because we recognize the fact that WE DON'T KNOW WHATS BEST FOR EVERYBODY ELSE, I don't know how you should live your life, where you should live, what kind of foods you should eat, how you should educate your children, etc, etc... that's for you to determine. What libertarians do know is that aggression (violence) is an inferior means of solving problems compared to reason and negotiation, that is principle that I attempt to live my life by, that I raised my children by and that I deal with relationships by and it is also the principle that I utilize to draw conclusions on the merits of public policy with.

That is why, I think, they are throwing tantrums in this thread every time I bring up the Libertarian Party platform...

Nobody is throwing "tantrums" , the fact that it appears that you cannot separate political partisanship from a school of philosophy evokes pity not anger.

...even libertarians can't cope with the idea of the Libertarian Party being a real party, that has to take real stands on real issues and potentially make real policy and real legislation in that regard.

Who said the Libertarian Party isn't a "real" party? as has been pointed out to you the Libertarian Party isn't the sole arbiter, spokesman or focus of libertarian philosophy.

Libertarianism is an idle fantasy.

Libertarianism is a school philosophy if it is your view that philosophy is "idle fantasy" then your posts in this thread make perfect sense and one wonders what you are doing here other than hoping to denigrate vast swaths of strangers for no other reason than it makes you feel better about yourself.