Any libertarians here?

[Majora]

I just seek information.

Give me the gist of what libertarianism is. Bonus points if you worship Ron Paul.

I know very little of it, but I'm starting to interact with them more and more so I might as well find out what it is EXACTLY. As exact as definitions of political ideologies can get, at least. I have a vague idea of what it is but I'd like some input from people. Though, based on what I know SO FAR, I can say with certainty that it's chalking up to be some stupid pipe dream that completely ignores reality in favor of some magical fantasy world. But again, this is just a preliminary conclusion based on a vague idea/information.

And before anyone gets antsy for the love of christ don't start a thing. Just give a description or what have you, and leave it at that.

[rock_nog]

Well, I'm not a libertarian myself, but I'm somewhat familiar with the concept, and I used to kinda lean libertarian to an extent. The basic gist of it is the notion of limited government. This means limited taxing, limited spending, and limited regulation. To be fair, though, there's some range of views even within libertarianism (as is true of any political view, I suppose). For instance, some libertarians may support limited government at the federal level, but then be okay with more government at the state and/or local level. I'll take two examples - marijuana and welfare. Most libertarians would object to the notion of federal regulation or restriction of marijuana, and federal funding of welfare. It gets a little muddier at the state level, though. Some would say it's okay for states to ban marijuana, or fund welfare, but some would say even that's wrong, and that it should really only be up to the individual, so long as the individual is not harming others in his or her choice. Moreover, this attitude has nothing to do with whether or not they think marijuana or welfare is a good thing. They may personally think that marijuana is incredibly dangerous and shouldn't be used by anyone, but that it's not their place to make that choice for others. Likewise (though far less common), they may believe that financial support for the poor is a good thing, but believe that it should only come in the form of personal charity, not be forced by the government.

Or to put it another way - for instance, I believe racism is horrible and wrong. However, that doesn't mean I believe you should be put in jail for going on a public racist tirade. That's your choice, and I'll damn well defend your right to make it - even if I do laugh in your face for being a racist bastard the whole time. Libertarianism is more or less taking that notion and expanding it to all aspects of government. But then again, I'm not exactly an expert on the subject, and I'm sure I'm gonna get told I got something wrong here. I think Beldaran would be the better person to talk about the subject, honestly.

[Liliith]

---

[Zim]

The problem with libertarians is that telling other people about the idea is contradictory to the ideology itself, because that action is in essence impeding (importing also fit) other peoples' otherwise unscathed freedom that predates the discussion.

[Mercy]

There is Libertarianism and there is libertarianism, in much the same way as there are Conservatives and conservatives. Are we talking political party or political philosophy here?


The problem with libertarians is that telling other people about the idea is contradictory to the ideology itself, because that action is in essence impeding (importing also fit) other peoples' otherwise unscathed freedom that predates the discussion.
No offense, but that is the most inaccurately lame assessment of Libertarianism/libertarianism I have ever come across. Please expound as I intend to explain why this is pure logical fallacy later.

[Zim]

The way in which people like you disavow books and authorship that were fundamental building blocks of your existence that predates you in the first place then step to lead other people into a subservient role by making absurd claims and requests would prove that
liberty has become a victim of disestablishmentarianism, brought on by younger, angsty, people with nothing better to do than fantasize about other peoples lack of education.

Furthermore, you decided to bring up the idea that there is a difference between the word with an l and the word with a capital L, not I, and you did so afterwards, and that was not a subject I had touched on at all, proving the logistics of your comment to be futile and irrelevant when in context to mine. For further evidence of the completely mundane nature of adding onto my statement for me, I will also point out that it is never logistically ergonomical to have two people doing one man's job, such as speaking his own mind.

[rock_nog]

Zim, ya got me totally lost. I have no clue what you're talking about. I don't mean that as a sleight or an attack, just I don't think you're being terribly clear about your meaning here. There's nothing wrong with libertarians telling people about libertarianism. The philosophy is about limited government power, not about restricting personal interactions, and besides, telling someone your ideas does not infringe upon their rights. And I'm saying that as someone who does not subscribe to libertarian ideals. I mean, total freedom and limited government sounds great, but we kinda need infrastructure to function, and a system in place for regulating that infrastructure.

Unless of course, I'm totally misunderstanding you, which is entirely possible.

[Mercy]

Hmm, looks like someone needs to slow their roll, take a few deep breaths and a walk, and reread the frelling thread before tossing about the phrase, "people like you," and a smattering of polysyllabic terms for which he seems to be lacking precise meanings. A call for clarification should not be met with belligerence unless one has no logical basis on which to stand.

At first, I thought he was just naively parroting someone else's meaningless pablum and needed some encouragement to put his own opinions in logical form. If, instead, argumentum ad hominems are the order of the day, I can work with that. You can bet your sweet bippy, I can work with that.

Now, dear Zim, if you would like to step back and reread and rethink your approach, we can pick this up from a fresh start, no harm, no foul.

No tolerance for the intolerant.

[Zim]

Infrastructure is necessary for words and ideas like "we" to exist, I believe that too. However, whether or not it is okay to share ideas obviously depends on what those ideas are, and in some cases there had been people using words like 'rights' and liberty improperly as if there is some no-infrastructure usage of the word as pertinent to the law. As in someone actually attacking my notion that it is a useless concept to elaborate to a free man in a free country that they are free when that person, such as myself, had an inherent notion of the concept based on my own inherent life, since before learning more words pertaining to the concept at places like public schools. So my idea got declared 'lame,' whereas to me that is a gross misunderstanding of the word liberty, but someone partaking in that type of appeal, to my experience, had always blurted out words like liberty and freedom of speech as the reason why they have the right to say such a thing, under some sort of 'Libertarian' standpoint, although since that about me in general and because the statement was directed and/or addressed to me directly, the law, due to infrastructure, that is essential for us to be having this conversation clearly states that was a felony crime, as opposed to the way I published my own thoughts with regards to my own ideas in general about the way I think as an individual.

[CJC]

To preface this post, I'll say that I am a fan of libertarianism but not a member of the party.
I think one of the problems that libertarianism faces is its affiliation with the types that believe "the laws exist to serve my own ends and should never get in my way". It's an intense form of narcissism which seems to accumulate with high incomes.

To me, the idea has always represented the freedom a citizen should have in risk assessment. In short, the government should expect people to be smart enough to make their own decisions and responsible enough to accept the consequences when those decisions lead to strife. A libertarian government should not require specific actions, like the purchase of health insurance, but also should not rescue people that suffer when they abstain from such action, such as those who are bankrupted by a medical emergency. I think this is the ideal Thomas Jefferson was striving for.

State power is different, of course. When you chose to live in a particular region you accept a contract with the people running that region and thereby agree to follow their rules. The reason State power is more acceptable than Federal power is one of scope; a State not only covers a much smaller geographic area but represents a much smaller population; laws can be tailored to the preferences and economy of the area instead of being a sweeping statement (one that is usually not universally applicable). Think of it like this: You've got a loose tread on your stairway. Do you:
Add a nail to that one tread? Replace that tread? Add a nail to every tread on the stairway? Replace all the treads on the stairway?

The last two options are Federal scope regulations, and with a metaphor like this it becomes clear how ridiculous solutions at that scope really are.

[SUCCESSOR]

Whelp, CJC said about all I could think to say here. Then again we don't need to get into my crazy political point of view. No need to start a debate here.

[vegeta1215]

Terminology is so stifling, but I consider myself a small 'l' libertarian, or if you prefer a constitutional conservative or liberty republican. I campaigned for Ron Paul in 2012 here in MD, and am still active politically.

[Beldaran]

Libertarianism is the sincere belief that it should be 100% legal for Bill Gates to purchase every single inch of land in the state of Washington except for the land on which police stations are located, then round up every single animal on his land, push them through huge robotic meat grinders until they are a fine, pink paste, inject the paste with formaldehyde and artificial strawberry flavors, and sell it to poor kids in the winter as "warm ice cream".

Because if you tried to pass a law to stop him from doing such a horrible thing, then you would not be a libertarian.

[SUCCESSOR]

Libertarianism is the sincere belief that it should be 100% legal for Bill Gates to purchase every single inch of land in the state of Washington except for the land on which police stations are located, then round up every single animal on his land, push them through huge robotic meat grinders until they are a fine, pink paste, inject the paste with formaldehyde and artificial strawberry flavors, and sell it to poor kids in the winter as "warm ice cream".

Because if you tried to pass a law to stop him from doing such a horrible thing, then you would not be a libertarian.

http://s1.static.gotsmile.net/images/2012/01/06/f7807a21-cant-tell-stupid-trolling_132580428869.jpg

Anyone sincerely interested in learning about libertarianism can read this or easily find pages like it.

http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/libertarianism.html

[Nathaniel]

I claim no expertise on Libertarianism, nor am I a Libertarian.

Now that that is out of the way...

From what I have always understood about Libertarianism, is that political views are primarily oriented on fiscal concerns, with social concerns always being secondary to that. They would typically be in support of a social program if it either reduces taxes or reduces expenses. If taxes are increased or expenses are increased, they are generally against it. I don't know how many people would be defined as purely Libertarian (you can argue that nobody is purely of a particular political affiliation, at least within their own minds), since we all tend to have opinions on some matters that would result in either increased taxes, or more likely, increased expenses. For example, many might possibly agree with higher military spending if they feel it is out of necessity. While I find that they tend to agree with Republicans somewhat more often than Democrats on various issues, if they do side with one party on a matter, their reasons tend to differ why. Neither major political party represents their general views, but in both cases, they will agree on some issues and clash on others. Overall, Libertarians are generally in favor of less government interference, lower taxes, and thus more power in the individual. My views on such a philosophy are mixed, and thus not supportive enough to consider myself a Libertarian.

[Beldaran]

Anyone sincerely interested in learning about libertarianism can read this or easily find pages like it.

http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/libertarianism.html


Thank you for posting a link that completely supports my point.

[SUCCESSOR]

Thank you for posting a link that completely supports my point.

So, not trolling.

That link wasn't for you. It was for people that use their brain. Why would you want to make such a law? That's part of the problem, laws and regulations that protect people from things they don't need protection from. Better yet: why would Bill Gates want do do such a thing? It wouldn't be very profitable. People would not sell their land. People would not buy his warm strawberry ice cream and if they did. If some people loved it, great for them. This isn't the stone age. Its the information age.

Making a law that safe guards the quality and nontoxicity of processed food products does not violate personal freedom. Furthermore libertarians don't have any sort of prejudice against being non-libertarian. Also, no delusions of a pure libertarian society. It sounds like you are just terrified of crazy 1%ers who want to sell your children porn and cigars... or, god forbid, meat!

Nathaniel sounds more like you are describing a Fiscal Conservative. Libertarians believe primarily in personal freedom. They are fiscally conservative simply because a minimal government is very cheap and that money is better served in the private sector. Government basically equals spending. So, less government means less spending.

[Beldaran]

why would Bill Gates want do do such a thing? It wouldn't be very profitable.

Companies do horrible, destructive, evil, and mean spirited things all the time just because it's profitable and unregulated. Libertarianism is a misguided philosophy because it does not address these issues.


That link wasn't for you. It was for people that use their brain.

I resent the implication that I don't use my brain. I've used it at least twice in just the last week.

[SUCCESSOR]

Regulations do not address these issues. Our laws and regulations help corporations stay large and in charge. We've made them too big to fail and too big to jail. These regulations only deter small business while the others step right over and when they are caught they pay a fine and get a slap on the wrist. The best and only sure deterrent of "evil" practices is public knowledge and the court where victims can fight for restitution/reparation. These suits would be much more damaging if our system didn't give these corporations protection. Hell, our "laws" can't even get them to pay taxes.

Unfortunately in the current state of our country we do not have proper laws and that be effectively enforced nor a truly free and effective press.

[mitsymckenzie777]

I don't think I'll gain any popularity points here but I'm Cristian but also transgender... My idea of an ideal politician is one that allows God's word to be spoken in the church but the right of prayer in public places. No one who doesn't want to participate doesn't have to. But at the same token laws to protect LGBT rights. I think Republicans and Democrats are leaders that don't do enough for anyone but themselves and the almighty dollar. I don't know much about Libertarians but I could use advice on the right party for me.

Note: I'm not trying to preach or put anyone down. I'm just curious who I should vote for or what party to promote so I can have someone to vote for. If this was too off topic just PM me if anyone can help. Thank you.

[rock_nog]

...Um, I would like to point out that prayer is allowed in public spaces, per the FIRST AMENDMENT. What many people get confused about is that government officials are not allowed to LEAD prayer in public spaces, as that would constitute a state-establishment of religion. For some reason, the fact that officials can't lead prayer leads some to conclude that prayer is banned in public spaces. A classic example is school prayer. Most people understand that teachers can't lead prayer - for some reason this gets turned around and people think this means students can't pray themselves. Students are perfectly within their rights to pray in school, so long as it's not disruptive, it's simply that teachers can't lead the prayer and time can't be set aside for prayer as part of the school schedule. This, however, doesn't mean that if little Timmy is caught praying at school that he'll get in trouble. A lot of people seem to think that's the case, though, and I've never really understood why.

[mitsymckenzie777]

Sorry for being way off topic. So my 9th grade teacher lied to me when she told me get off my knees prayer isn't allowed in schools. Which I wasn't Christian at the time and was only on my knees to put books up. Then again I hated school and they let me get bullied and said I played the victim. It's no wonder I was scared to come out in school which btw they should of known I was transgender and helped me then to transition. Cause I always sang girly song's in a woman's voice when they locked me in the room the school used for punishing me when I so called played the victim. Instead I'm 30 and just now about to see an endocrinologist. :'( But anyways what we need is someone to fix the school system. I hope the next president or govener does something if it hasn't been fixed yet. But yea what rock_nog pointed out hit a trigger in my heart of which has been shattered by many things over the years. Again I'm sorry for if this is too off topic but I had to vent on that.

[rock_nog]

Yeah, your 9th grade teacher did, in fact, lie to you. Granted, I mean generally that doesn't mean it gives you a free pass to be disruptive or not pay attention to the lessons, but if you want to pray in school, you damn well have the right. Like, I mean if you're in the cafeteria and you wanna say grace before eating, there's no rule against that. Sorry your formative years were... well, shitty beyond all reason, from the sound of it. Also, I do apologize for any harshness in my tone earlier, it's just so often people use prayer in school as a battleground - they'll make false claims that students aren't allowed to pray in school, just as a way in to force prayer in school. It's much easier, after all, to force the issue when you claim your rights are being infringed. "I'm not allowed to pray in school, so we need to change the rules to allow prayer in school..." and pretty soon, you're right back to having teachers lead prayers, and that's just wrong on so many levels. Or it's an argument for why we need to defund public schools and put all our education money into private schools, to ensure that religious children aren't prevented from practicing their beliefs (even though, as I said, you're completely free to practice your religious beliefs in school, so long as they aren't disruptive). Sorry, I'm kinda going off on a tangent myself.

[anikom]

I'm libertarian. Libertarian does not mean limited government. It means granting people as much freedom as possible. This usually requires limiting government, but not necessarily. For example: murder violates a person's inalienable right to life, therefore laws must be made to illegalize murder. This is an example where libertarianism actually strengthens government.

Another way of looking at libertarianism is to think that everything is de facto legal until it is made illegal, and rights are always negative.

[Asuna Yuuki Nagato]

I used to be a registered Libertarian.