repeater

So I've noticed a few people on here talk about being Libertarian and it's something I just don't really understand. I don't know any libertarians, so I thought I would talk to some here. I'm not really interested in reading websites about it, but if someone here wanted to basicially explain what it's about then I'd really appreciate it. The only idea i'm really familiar with is "tax is theft". I don't know if that's a true idea or something I just heard though. Cheers.

__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
-Raoul Duke

djtestudo

A simple way to put it is that Libertarians want as little government as possible in their life. That means fewer taxes, fewer services, and fewer laws.

I know you said you didn't want to look at websites, but I would suggest taking a peak at the Libertarian Party website, as I know that would help you much more then I could.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

ARTelevision

Some folks have been discussing Libertarianism in the "Authoritarianism" thread on this forum.

Good idea to have started this current thread as a place for more specific Libertarian-related dialog.

__________________
create evolution

irseg

Democrats emphasize more social freedom (legalize gay marriage, abortion, marijuana, etc.) but less economic freedom by advocating higher taxes, especially on the most productive members of our society.

Republicans are the opposite--less social freedom, more economic freedom.

Libertarians take the best of both worlds by advocating freedom across the board. As with any political viewpoint there are different degrees; some are basically Republicans who would like to be able to smoke up legally, or Democrats who want lower taxes. On the other end of the spectrum are the ones who think all roads, fire departments, etc should be privatized.

That's libertarianism in a nutshell.

Dwayne

So libertarians are basically super liberals. Im glade someone posted this question because I always wanted to know what libertarians are about also. But after reading these responses I come up with the question of, Whats the Difference bettweens Libertarians and members of the green party?

roachboy

like irseg said, there are left and right libertarians--they can just as easily be ultraconservative as not. left libertarians can be quasi-anarchist (i do not know many who know much about the history of anarchism, so it is quasi-)

the green party in the states is still sort of an enivronmentalist party--it has changed quite considerably in europe as a function of entering national and eu level politics....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

irseg

Libertarians and Greens are nothing alike.

Greens think we should be taxed more heavily so more money can be put into social welfare programs, and businesses should face much stricter environmental regulations.

Libertarians favor lowering/abolishing income tax, and would say that social welfare and environmental issues are none of the government's business.

assilem

Taken from lp.org:

"Libertarians believe the answer to America's political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom that marks this country above all others; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders."

__________________
The mother of mankind, what time his pride
Had cast him out from Heaven, with all his host
Of rebel Angels

repeater

So would it be up to the citizens to regulate things like a factory's pollution? How exactly would you go about doing something like that? It seems to me it would just be giving them a free pass to do whatever the hell they wanted. Where do they stand with cops? Would there be a need for them?

Having more personal liberties sounds good, but I think the complete privitization of a lot things would just spell disaster.

__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
-Raoul Duke

Stompy

I think a lot of the ideas sound good on paper, but are very cloudy when it comes to actually implementing them.

RE: Citizens regulating pollution and stuff... how they would go about doing it, no idea, but on the flipside, I think it's much better than having that company shell out $$ to sway politicians into allowing them to pollute without consequence. At least.. you couldn't easily "buy" the public's consent to pollute.

[edit]
I interpret this as (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) a way to eliminate corporate/government corruption. These days it's WAY too easy to pay the govt in order to get what you want - and it happens ALL the time. For example, just look at the RIAA/MPAA with the INDUCE Act and surrounding controversy regarding P2P.

__________________
I love lamp.

repeater

True you couldn't really buy it, but you also wouldn't have to. Where would the authority to enforce any type of pollution standard come from? That's my question.

__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
-Raoul Duke

FoolThemAll

I've heard libertarian-minded people insist on pollution controls/fines, being that pollution imposes external costs on others. Makes sense to me.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

djtestudo

Very simple...if you don't like what the company does, you stop buying their products. If enough people do it, they will change or go out of business.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Bill O'Rights

Hmmm...Libertarianism...in a nutshell. I've tried for years, and I don't think you can sum up Libertarianism in a nutshell.

Throw out everything that you know about Liberal and Conservative. We don't wear those suits. What we believe is simple. We believe in individual sovereignty. That is, the right of an individual to regulate, and control, his/her own life, with as little governmental interference as possible. We believe that individuals should be free to follow their own dreams, in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power. We also believe that by privatizing a vast majority of the functions that the government now involves itself in, these functions can be run in a far more efficient and effective manner. This is extremely basic, and there is so much more. I would strongly urge you to check out the Executive Summary of The Libertarian Party Platform on the website.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

repeater

American Indian Rights
American Indians should be free to determine their own system of governance and should have their property rights restored.


Does that mean we all have to leave?

__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
-Raoul Duke

Bill O'Rights

Let me preface with..."As I understand it", because I could be wrong. (Hey...it's happened) When the party says that the American Indian should have their property rights restored...what they mean is that property that was legaly given to them, per treaty, by the United States Congress, only to have that property taken from them. This includes lands such as the Black Hills, of South Dakota. This is sacred land to them, and we, by violation of a still binding treaty, forced them from, and proceeded to occupy it. Plus, I think we carved some white men's faces on it.

Is this likely to happen? No...it's not. Not all Libertarian position is gold. The principle is sound...but the implementation is really not feasible.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

dy156

No.
Well, kinda, but I don't think most libertarians would take kindly to being described that way. They can be described as the most selfish of liberals, but I prefer the only philosophically consistent conservatives. If you think of the red and blue states that everyone talks about, Libertarians are purple. The libertarian party is not affiliated with the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), but it's an organization that shares some of the same goals. Michael Dukakis was criticized for being a member of the ACLU because it meant that he was too liberal, but I met a guy that founded a chapter of the ACLU in a small Texas town who told me that he did it because he thought it was ridiculous that you couldn't get away with saying "nigger" anymore.

Libertarians' political beliefs cannot be placed on the traditional political spectrum because it is not perceived to be circular.

Libertarian thinking is evidenced in the long-haried hippy that thinks everything ought to be legal so that everyone can smoke out or practice alternative lifestyles, and the businessman who thinks that the government should mind its own damn business and let him run his without having to worry about installing wheelchair access ramps, because he doesn't make enough money from his wheelchair-bound customers to justify the expense of installing one. Libertarians also consist of dorks like me that think about politics and political philosophy too much.

The problem is that the hippie doesn't have enough money to have economic issues affect his vote. He votes democratic. The businessman just goes with the flow and doesn't worry about the rights of people like the hippie, cause he doesn't practice an alternative lifestyle, and so it doesn't matter to him whether those people's rights are protected. He votes Republican. Then the political philosophy dorks that actually make up the libertarian party try to make a statement becuase they know they can't actually win, and therefore they adopt "principled" but impractical stances based on their philosophy and not what might appeal to pragmatic voters, and so we're stuck with the flawed two party system.
That kinda got off track and became rantish. Sorry, but hope it helps.

SecretMethod70

Precisely. Pollution effects other people's right to good health and therefore there is reason to regulate it IMO.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Zeld2.0

The pollution fine thing is pretty much correct - if they don't want to pollute, find ways to lower that cost by lowering your pollution. It would just be factored in as a part of production cost to them - makes sense in both market and social terms.

repeater

Cool. I wasn't serious though, just thought it was kind of funny.

On a serious note, it also said on there that libertarians supported full speraration of state and education. What exactly does that mean? Does anyone here agree? Does it mean no public schools and therefore no free education?

__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
-Raoul Duke

MSD

"Free" education is paid for by taxes. Phasing out public schools and allowing both religious and secular private schools to compete would eliminate many of the problems with today's educational systems. In order to compete with other schools, each would have to strive to provide the highest quality education possible.

smooth

Your answer is yes. You would have to pay for your child's education out of pocket.

How much taxes did you pay last year? Let's leave out all the other government services you benefitted directly or indirectly from last year--now, could you have sent your child(ren) through a year's education on that?

I wonder what would happen after only a few private corporations owned the education system. How much would they monitor and direct what was being taught? What emphasis would they place on various courses?

Does this society benefit most from broad-based education, or segmented schools of thought?

How much more would education costs spiral once a guaranteed minimum is removed? I mean, that's the beauty of government programs--they provide a base minimum standard without legislation. They don't force private companies to act through direct regulation (which libertarians are usually in support of, I've heard), but many people realize that something needs to regulate private behavior. Some argue that the market is adequate. If true, then government programs utilize the market to do just that.

By providing a bare minimum at a subsidized cost, private companies have to offer as good or better products for cheaper or the same price. The best example of this is the mail service.

It's the most reliable entity I know of. It's so reliable that for decades it's slogan was used in place of reliability. If you want something done, you send it in an envelope--banks, bill collectors, and relatives know that. This is a blatant fact--it's evidence is that the US postal service receives no outside funding besides stamps! And mail delivery isn't even their primary function--it's mail fraud, which is a huge investagotory branch of our government. It's mostly tax fraud since transactions always have to be done over the wires or through the mail.

But the interesting thing is that even with all the options that replace the mail service, even free ones, haven't hurt it. Private companies can't get lower rates, although they can get pretty darn close. Rates are comparable across the board and I can only assume that's because the government price acts as an anchor to the private prices. And that's good, because a government agency is not beholden to stock holders or accruing profit--so it has no ulterior motive other than providing the service it was created for.

I can only think of one main reason no one would ever propose dismantling the US Postal service, reliable communication is essential to this nation's economic, political, and social stability. And that's profound.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

skyscan

I've been listening to Michael Badarik's debates and constitutional discussion (I've watched one hour out of seven so far and I'm amazed to say the least, everyone regardless of party needs to watch his presentation of the constitution to understand the rights given to you *VERY IMPORTANT*. You can download all seven hours from here ) I want to know his views on as many issues as possible. As I was listening to him, can someone explain his view on the IRS/Federal Reserve? He seemed to be determined to get rid of IRS and Federal Reserve, I would like to learn how this would work out. (Thanks in advance)

Also, as I was thinking about the other parties I wondered how effective it is to do a national campaign each and every 4 years. This has to spread what little funds available to them thin. On election night I feel that few people will look over nationally what percent a independent candidate gets but rather which state went to who. Imagine if the party focused on one state and managed to win that state. People would be shocked that they managed to win a state and regardless of who won that would be the story of the election. Just a thought, carry on.

Sun Tzu

If you didnt get a chance to see the debate between the Libertarian candidate and the green party candidate you can catch it at http://www.c-span.org/ that would be the best explanation. I learned a few things about the green party I didnt know.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Pacifier

I think the wikipedia article is quite good and has a lot of info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarians

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

OpieCunningham

Libertarianism is a real nice idea.

I'd be a Libertarian in a second ... if I didn't have this rather strong distrust of my fellow man.

Ultimately it comes down to who do you trust to protect you from things that you, as an individual, have no direct control? The good intentions of government that you control via our pseudo-democracy or the good intentions of other individuals that you do not control at all?

Essentially, one tenet of Libertarianism is that of the free-market. The idea is that instead of having a government body regulate an industry, a third-party (ostensibly without ties to said industry) offers analysis and reports. Basically, Consumer Reports on a massive scale.

A couple of examples:

- The Coal refining industry.
Instead of having EPA inspectors, they would have no mandatory inspections. A non-profit organization is created who offers to inspect a company's plants and analyze the data they capture and report and rate the plant against other plants. Consumers then have access to the information to base their decision on which power company they want to purchase energy from. Sounds wonderful. But what happens when a consumer only has one option? And what happens when that one option decides it doesn't need to worry about these non-profit inspections anymore? Which means they don't have to worry about polluting anymore. Plus they can charge whatever their hearts desire. So here's where the consumer solution gets a little uncomfortable. The solution is that the consumer can either start their own coal processing plant to provide their own power or they can move.

- The Child Car Seat Manufacturing industry
This industry is currently HEAVILY regulated by the government to prevent the deaths of children through faulty manufacturing and/or false claims. Again, the libertarian solution is to provide a non-profit industry watch group to offer to test child seats and offer reports to consumers. Ostensibly, a concious consumer (as we all should be concious in our purchasing decisions) would not purchase a child seat from a manufacturer who produced faulty seats. Additional safety information would be determined by the propensity for any given seat to cause deaths in car accidents.

In the end, the question is - how much polution would be created before a critical mass is reached (cutting through the spin put out by the energy company to deny their polluting behavior) to convince the polluter to stop? How many children must die before it becomes common knowledge that the manufacturer makes dangerous seats?

This issue with the free-market concept is just one serious flaw of Libertarianism.

Do you trust your fellow man or do you trust the government to protect you from your fellow man?

I don't trust either one. But I know I can affect change in government that I cannot over my fellow man.

Another form of Libertarianism are the Constitutionalists. I'm not too familiar with that specific brand, but I believe it essentially points to the Constitution as the final word on Federal gov't, with individual States in control of everything else.

Mephisto2

Opie,

thanks for the enlightening explanation (or is it interpretation) of libertarianism.

I can safely say that the idea repells me. Smacks of early century (and late 19th century) anarchists political hogwash, like Proudhon's "Property is theft".

Count me a social democrat and happy. :-)


Mr Mephisto

OpieCunningham

Assuredly, it is my interpretation. I'm certain someone more enamored with the practicality of Libertarianism would have a different view. I only wish they could convince me ... I can't stand gov't.

filtherton

I think a move towards a libertarian style of government would just trade one set of problems for a really similar set of problems. Libertarianism would never work without a check on greed, which doesn't exist.

Mephisto2

Exactly filtherton.

Sometimes I wish those who bleat for "less government" were somehow cursed to spend a year living withone to protect them.

No health and safety regulations.
No public roads, transport, media, hospital services.
No police to protect them and their family.
No military to protect their "country"
No regulations to prevent corporate greed and corner cutting.

etc etc.

It's like those crazy "militia" groups that hole up in the hills saying they want to secede from the country. Crazy people.

/rant off

:-)


Mr Mephisto

seretogis

Please don't bump this thread, it makes me ache to see Libertarians compared to Greens.

Mephisto, Libertarianism is an ideology more than anything. Some issues would not be very easy or practical to privatize -- this doesn't mean that Libertarianism is wrong or severely flawed, however.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

filtherton

It is only as wrong and severely flawed as every other political system that humanity distracts itself with.

Mephisto2

Well yes, I suppose so.

The same way Communism is an ideology. But it is seriously flawed. I believe libertarianism, as I understand it, is also.

Mr Mephisto