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:

1. Add a nail to that one tread?
2. Replace that tread?
3. Add a nail to every tread on the stairway?
4. 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.