What is Libertarian?

[Bfgrn]

But I'm not proposing ousting any business from the community. If an 'objectionable' business exists when the social contract is formed, that business should be grandfathered in. The people who legally built it up on good faith that their license was legal should not be deprived of their livelihood and their own pursuit of happiness or, if the community really wants it out of there, a deal with the owners should be negotiated to be sure the owner was adequately compensated for closing and moving the business and everybody is happy. Most business owners do not wish to operate in a hostile business environment and there is usually a way to work such things out.

There will probably be some sticky wickets in very close votes every once in awhile, but it is my experience that those very close votes are very rare in this kind of scenario. Usually there is no initiative to establish a particular ordinance until there is already widespread support for it. And there is no better way to accomplish social contract other than every citizen having a vote.

Do you think it wrong to have the people vote on whether to issue bonds for this or that project in the community? These initiatives sometimes DO result in very close votes. But is there a better way than a democratic election to decide such things?

If a person uses his money to buy or rent a property, and uses his money, time and work to develop a business, whose business is it if it is "objectionable" to them? If it is objectionable to enough people then he will go out of business for lack of customers.
It is a unfair takings to restrict zoning because something is "objectionable."

Zoning is a way to establish order, pleasing aesthetics, and a safe and moral environment. There is a good reason that most communities don't want an adult bookstore or tavern or strip club near the public schools. Such businesses sometimes attract questionable clientele and there is an objectionable moral element to it for many, and they don't want the kids exposed to all that day after day.

If I have a little neighborhood ice cream shop surrounded by other quaint little shops, that establishes a particular environment and aesthetics that would be destroyed by a Wal-mart or big supermarket or other big box store going in, it is reasonable to object to the big stores and/or different kinds of businesses moving in. It is reasonable to restrict busineses to a particular type and square footage in that neighborhood. That is not a violation of anybody's rights and discriminates against nobody as anybody has the right to conform to the zoning requirements . That is people exercising their freedom to establish the sort of society in which they wish to live.

So long as nobody is discriminated against, I see it as an unalienable right for property owners to establish the sort of environment and society they wish to have. That would fall right into the 'pursuit of happiness' category. A little french cafe with a full bar might fit into that, while a honky tonk would not.

The sort of wide open zoning you seem to be suggesting brings visions of the old wild west Deadwood hellfire days in which anything goes and a quiet, safe, peaceful environment is not to be found.

Libertarianism fuses two ideas, one political, one psychological. The political idea is that the central state should be confined within the narrowest possible limits. The psychological idea is that each person should enjoy the widest possible scope to live as he or she thinks best.

Libertarians see these two ideas as very consistent. But that libertarian perspective only feels consistent if you can accept a previous assumption: that the central state is the most important limit on our ability to live as we think best. For most people in most advanced modern democracies, that hypothesis does not ring true. For most people, it’s the bill collector, or the ex-wife, or the boss that imposes the most onerous restraints.

If this tandem set of ideas seems remote even in our modern era, back in the 18th century, each on its own would have been inaccessible, never mind both together.

Start for example with the need to confine government. Modern libertarians draw a very clear line between “the state” and private associations. I.e.: If a town council passes an ordinance requiring all houses to be painted white, that’s an outrageous violation of personal liberty, but if a condominium association adopts such a rule, that’s a reasonable exercise of freedom of association. But suppose you lived in an 18th century New England town, and the town meeting adopted such a rule. Is the town meeting more like the modern town council? Or the condo association?

That distinction, so legible to us, was not nearly so legible in the 18th century. Were the Penn family the “government” of Pennsylvania or its owners? Even at the highest level, things were fuzzy. The king of England was yes clearly equivalent to something we’d call “the state.” But Parliament? Was that “the state” also? Or was it more like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: a permanent standing body to monitor the government and with some ability to protest and block the government’s actions?

The fact is that the concept of the “state” as presented in some modern libertarian writing owes much more to 19th century German ideas than to the 18th century Anglo-American legacy. In 18th century Britain, the question of whether ministers owed obedience to the king or to Parliament was a blurry and uncertain one. In 19th century Germany and Austro-Hungary, the question was clear: ministers obeyed the monarch. Period. “The state” as experienced by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek was something outside civil society, something that society could not reliably control, and therefore had to be contained. A John Adams might think of the king of England that way, but that’s not how he’d think of the legislature of the commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Libertarian psychology would have been even more indigestible to the 18th century mind than libertarian politics. Libertarianism argues that each individual should enjoy the widest possible scope to live as he or she thinks best. It’s an attractive ideal, one widely shared by 21st century people. Modern liberals share the libertarian commitment to “autonomy,” as this ideal is generally called – they just disagree about the institutions needed to support autonomy.

But to an American of the Founding generation, the ideal of autonomy would have contradicted four of the most fundamental physical and psychic facts of life...

Frum Forum - Were the Founders Libertarians?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are 2 kinds of Libertarians:

1. A Conservative with his brains knocked out.

2. A Liberal with his brains knocked out.

What's the best thing we've gotten out of Libertarianism?

...about 95% of the population.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Founders were classical liberals, children of the Enlightenment, not libertarians.

 

[Foxfyre]

Classical liberalism IS libertarianism (little L).

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Foxfyre, not then and not now.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've already posted the definition on this thread I believe Jake. If you have a different authority you're welcome to post it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sometimes zoning is for the purposes you say. More often it is to produce an aesthetic environment. You don't put Class C zoning in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood for instance. You don't allow small inexpensive housing to be built amidst high value homes as that would pull down the property values of the high value investments. Also to create a certain environment there can be restrictions on certain kinds of landscaping or ordinances against no inoperable vehicles parked on streets or put up on blocks in front yards. Some neighborhoods don't want big RVs parked out front to obstruct views, etc.

Again, if we are not free to create the sort of environment we want to have, we are not free.

If we are not powerless to use our own property as we want then we are not free. Is that really what you mean? Please start with the "it takes a village" meme to make this complete so we can all move on.

I am all for the power and right to use our own property as we want UNTIL it infringes on the rights of my neighbor to use HIS property as HE wants. To accomplish freedom for both parties, zoning regulations is the best way to accomplish that. The guy who wants a honky tonk buys property that is zoning reg free or zoned for that particular type business. He doesn't open a honky tonk acxross from the Church and next door to the old couple who bought into the neighborhood because it was safe, quiet, and with minimal traffic.

The difference between our views I think is that the Libertarian (capital L) doesn't want any rules or restrictions of any kind other than those that prevent us from doing violence to each other. It is just one step away from Anarchy.

But libertarianism (little L) that I embrace allows people to use whatever regulation is necessary to form the society they wish to have. I see that as being more free than being subject to near anarchy.

No. Your view is that of the tyranny of the majority where property rights mean very little. Why shouldn't a honky tonk open across from a church? Who is hurt by that? That's as bad as saying we don't want Negroes in our neighborhood because they are dirty people.

It's not that I am against any restrictions. I am only for zoning restrictions that affect health and safety. And aesthetics don't count for either fo those.

 

[Bern80]

I'm a Marine SSgt. I deal only in absolutes. Someone is either a friendly or an enemy, a liberal or a conservative. There's black and there's white. Shades of gray like Libertarian are a misnomer to me.

Republican and Democrat are just labels. What absolutes specifically do you think they represent?

Republicans are supposed to be fiscal consevatives. However I'll admit that for the last 10 years or so they haven't been. That's why I'm now a member of the Tea Party.

That isn't an absolute at all. You may want to alter your thinking as to how conducive your strict adherence to absolutes is in solving problems. Every political stripe has shades of grey. Including spending. What you may consider conservative fiscal policy, a libertarian may not. But as far as political ideology goes I think you would find that libertarians are far more clear cut on their positios than Republicans or Democrats. They sometimes are considered more moderate than conservatives because they are generally socially liberal. Meaning they generaly allow people to do what they want as long as it doesn't negatively impact someone else. Though I'm not really clear how that constitutes 'gray area'.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sometimes zoning is for the purposes you say. More often it is to produce an aesthetic environment. You don't put Class C zoning in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood for instance. You don't allow small inexpensive housing to be built amidst high value homes as that would pull down the property values of the high value investments. Also to create a certain environment there can be restrictions on certain kinds of landscaping or ordinances against no inoperable vehicles parked on streets or put up on blocks in front yards. Some neighborhoods don't want big RVs parked out front to obstruct views, etc.

Again, if we are not free to create the sort of environment we want to have, we are not free.

If we are not powerless to use our own property as we want then we are not free. Is that really what you mean? Please start with the "it takes a village" meme to make this complete so we can all move on.

I am all for the power and right to use our own property as we want UNTIL it infringes on the rights of my neighbor to use HIS property as HE wants. To accomplish freedom for both parties, zoning regulations is the best way to accomplish that. The guy who wants a honky tonk buys property that is zoning reg free or zoned for that particular type business. He doesn't open a honky tonk acxross from the Church and next door to the old couple who bought into the neighborhood because it was safe, quiet, and with minimal traffic.

The difference between our views I think is that the Libertarian (capital L) doesn't want any rules or restrictions of any kind other than those that prevent us from doing violence to each other. It is just one step away from Anarchy.

But libertarianism (little L) that I embrace allows people to use whatever regulation is necessary to form the society they wish to have. I see that as being more free than being subject to near anarchy.

That is, at least, until the honky tonk hopeful give the politician a couple of thousand bucks to re-zone the area to whatever he wants. Happened to a local neighborhood where I used to live. Zoning restrictions did not allow a recycling plant until someone managed to 'convince' the powers that be to rezone them.


I have to give you some points in your argument though. I can see where zoning makes sense to a degree as long as it is kept in generalities. What I was speaking to was more specific and I was not thinking of zoning at all. A good example was in Big Bear when I used to live there. Wal-Mart wanted to move into the community but was blocked by the local government. The thing is there was already a super K-Mart up there so there was no reason that they were blocked. It was wrong. If the people wanted the business gone, they simply could have chosen not to buy products there. That is more along the lines of what I was referring to. In your examples, zoning would be used to block ALL business of a specific type. I can see the value in allowing such a thing though I am still precarious about many of the negative aspects of giving government that kind of power to use at their own discretion.

 

[Bern80]

No, Foxfyre, not then and not now.

I would love to hear you explain the difference.

 

[Liberty]

lp.org/platform

Preamble

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

Statement of Principles

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons,
homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held
by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights
of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without
victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,
immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or
restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices
and personal relationships.

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.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired
property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by
any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment
to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.
We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the
ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic
success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each
person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of
government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a
legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute
wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.


2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.


2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository
institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money
any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and
unconstitutional legal tender laws.


2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.


2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of
individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want,
the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of
their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health
insurance across state lines.


2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would
phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private
voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts
of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and
civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.
The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as
policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter
threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil
liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time
of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be
subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to
keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the
government has violated the law.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should
emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding
foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention,
including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and
defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of
terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by
political or revolutionary groups.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape
from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the
crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human
as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into
our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.


3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.


3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

 

[Foxfyre]

If we are not powerless to use our own property as we want then we are not free. Is that really what you mean? Please start with the "it takes a village" meme to make this complete so we can all move on.

I am all for the power and right to use our own property as we want UNTIL it infringes on the rights of my neighbor to use HIS property as HE wants. To accomplish freedom for both parties, zoning regulations is the best way to accomplish that. The guy who wants a honky tonk buys property that is zoning reg free or zoned for that particular type business. He doesn't open a honky tonk acxross from the Church and next door to the old couple who bought into the neighborhood because it was safe, quiet, and with minimal traffic.

The difference between our views I think is that the Libertarian (capital L) doesn't want any rules or restrictions of any kind other than those that prevent us from doing violence to each other. It is just one step away from Anarchy.

But libertarianism (little L) that I embrace allows people to use whatever regulation is necessary to form the society they wish to have. I see that as being more free than being subject to near anarchy.

No. Your view is that of the tyranny of the majority where property rights mean very little. Why shouldn't a honky tonk open across from a church? Who is hurt by that? That's as bad as saying we don't want Negroes in our neighborhood because they are dirty people.

It's not that I am against any restrictions. I am only for zoning restrictions that affect health and safety. And aesthetics don't count for either fo those.

Sorry but I am a passionate Classical Liberal which puts PRIMARY importance on the unalienable right of a person to his/her person and property. And that includes the right to form a social contract with my neighbors to protect my/our property and property value including the aesthetic value.

You seem to want to deny me that right.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, Foxfyre, not then and not now.

I would love to hear you explain the difference.

Yes, me too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I've already posted the definition on this thread I believe Jake. If you have a different authority you're welcome to post it.

Your authority is entitled to an opinion but misefines the term and revises history. I refer to The Oxford Companion to United States History, edited by Paul S. Boyer, reference "Liberalism" (pp. 441-42) with cross references to Conservatism, Pragmatism, Radicalism, Republicanism. A very interesting short article of "Libertarian Party" follows immediately after the one on "Liberalism." The Stanford U site has an interesting piece on "Libertarianism" at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism, which I found very interesting.

 

[Foxfyre]

If we are not powerless to use our own property as we want then we are not free. Is that really what you mean? Please start with the "it takes a village" meme to make this complete so we can all move on.

I am all for the power and right to use our own property as we want UNTIL it infringes on the rights of my neighbor to use HIS property as HE wants. To accomplish freedom for both parties, zoning regulations is the best way to accomplish that. The guy who wants a honky tonk buys property that is zoning reg free or zoned for that particular type business. He doesn't open a honky tonk acxross from the Church and next door to the old couple who bought into the neighborhood because it was safe, quiet, and with minimal traffic.

The difference between our views I think is that the Libertarian (capital L) doesn't want any rules or restrictions of any kind other than those that prevent us from doing violence to each other. It is just one step away from Anarchy.

But libertarianism (little L) that I embrace allows people to use whatever regulation is necessary to form the society they wish to have. I see that as being more free than being subject to near anarchy.

That is, at least, until the honky tonk hopeful give the politician a couple of thousand bucks to re-zone the area to whatever he wants. Happened to a local neighborhood where I used to live. Zoning restrictions did not allow a recycling plant until someone managed to 'convince' the powers that be to rezone them.


I have to give you some points in your argument though. I can see where zoning makes sense to a degree as long as it is kept in generalities. What I was speaking to was more specific and I was not thinking of zoning at all. A good example was in Big Bear when I used to live there. Wal-Mart wanted to move into the community but was blocked by the local government. The thing is there was already a super K-Mart up there so there was no reason that they were blocked. It was wrong. If the people wanted the business gone, they simply could have chosen not to buy products there. That is more along the lines of what I was referring to. In your examples, zoning would be used to block ALL business of a specific type. I can see the value in allowing such a thing though I am still precarious about many of the negative aspects of giving government that kind of power to use at their own discretion.

As long as the people direct the government there is no problem. The problem comes when the government presumes to decide for the people what they will and will not be allowed to do in matters that do not affect safety. Of course there will be laws and ordinances decided by the local government that the people won't like. And our Constitution gives the people full power to petititon the government to a redress of grievances when that happens.

Here in Albuquerque, for instance, a roaring controversy over red light cameras continues. Many people hate the cameras because there is no way to challenge them if you are ticketed. Others love them because they do slow down the traffic through busy intersections and they at least feel more safe. In the end, I would hope that the majority opinion would prevail there.

My whole premise is that forming a social contract with my neighbors to protect my/our property values and aesthetic enjoyment of my/our surroundings is what freedom is all about and what the Founders intended. In the rare case that somebody will already be there who doesn't conform to the conditions we want can be grandfathered in or adequately compensated/bribed to move.

I also support the right of the community to form a social contract to keep out certain types of businesses. But if one is let in, all should be let in. If any is banned, all should be banned.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've already posted the definition on this thread I believe Jake. If you have a different authority you're welcome to post it.

Your authority is entitled to an opinion but misefines the term and revises history. I refer to The Oxford Companion to United States History, edited by Paul S. Boyer, reference "Liberalism" (pp. 441-42) with cross references to Conservatism, Pragmatism, Radicalism, Republicanism. A very interesting short article of "Libertarian Party" follows immediately after the one on "Liberalism." The Stanford U site has an interesting piece on "Libertarianism" at Libertarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), which I found very interesting.

It is interesting. It also mostly historially and factually supports my definition. Not yours.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at all. You are attempting redefine what the Founders actually were and what they believed. They were not libertarians at all. The sources do not support your contention at all but refute it instead.

 

[Bern80]

Not at all. You are attempting redefine what the Founders actually were and what they believed. They were not libertarians at all. The sources do not support your contention at all but refute it instead.

And I why exactly were they not libertarians? What is it that made them classical liberals as opposed to libertarians?

 

[Foxfyre]

Not at all. You are attempting redefine what the Founders actually were and what they believed. They were not libertarians at all. The sources do not support your contention at all but refute it instead.

Rave on my friend. You are dead wrong and will not be able to show otherwise, but oh well.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not at all. You are attempting redefine what the Founders actually were and what they believed. They were not libertarians at all. The sources do not support your contention at all but refute it instead.

And I why exactly were they not libertarians? What is it that made them classical liberals as opposed to libertarians?

Classical liberalism was also described as libertarianism. In the basic core principles, they are indistinguishable. The only good government is that which secures our rights and then leaves us alone to govern ourselves.

What some of our friends here are arguing, however, is a case for Libertarianism (big "L") that objects to social contract which the Founders, all classical liberals, strongly supported. I do not see liberalism (little "L") as any different from their concept as I do not think freedom includes enforced anarchy short of government prevention of us doing physical violennce to a person or his/her property.

For instance the Founders did not think it the prerogative of government to forbid the few colonies practicing theocracy from having the right to that theocracy. Though none of the Founders would have submitted to such a theocracy, it was the right of the people themselves to choose to do so. In Jake's link, you find reference to the component of libertarianism that affords the people the right to voluntary enslavement, etc.

The Founders also felt that a moral people would eventually get around to the best choices and in that context those same little theocracies all dissolved by the end of the 18th century.