NT What Do You Think Of Libertarians?

Discussion in 'General' started by theta, Dec 28, 2009.

  1. theta

    theta

    1,357
    10
    Joined
    Aug 3, 2009
    ^^

    specifically a free market based one
     
  2. dynamic x

    dynamic x

    2,723
    10
    Joined
    Mar 30, 2009
    Every time I see the word, I think of Librarians.

    There's your answer.
     
  3. 410fresh

    410fresh Banned

    1,234
    10
    Joined
    Dec 29, 2007
    CO-SIGN
     
  4. king beef

    king beef Banned

    2,089
    14
    Joined
    Jul 31, 2009
    I think poorly of them. Well most of them. Probably because of this man.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. j23s

    j23s

    2,702
    10
    Joined
    Nov 29, 2009
    They stay shushing people [​IMG]
     
  6. spsfinest212

    spsfinest212

    5,070
    10
    Joined
    Mar 27, 2009
    He's an actor don't let him fool you.
     
  7. dirtylicious

    dirtylicious Administrator

    10,507
    208
    Joined
    May 3, 2001
    I'll post something from a person's words that I respect...
     
  8. essential1

    essential1

    29,577
    4,311
    Joined
    Aug 2, 2008
    It's 80/20 good to bad. The 20% like Rex end up getting grouped with the 80% of the dumbasses who have 1 answer for every question


    Libertarians = Over Glorified Conservatives = Over Glorified Republicans..
     
  9. the yes guy

    the yes guy

    2,784
    10
    Joined
    Jun 19, 2007


    Thank you. You'll never meet a poor libertarian.
     
  10. antonlavey

    antonlavey Banned

    28,463
    870
    Joined
    Oct 13, 2008



    This, a libertarian is essentially a glorified conservative.
     
  11. shaunhillftw49

    shaunhillftw49

    8,418
    41
    Joined
    Dec 2, 2009
    With a completely different foreign policy/social stance
     
  12. da703trailblaza

    da703trailblaza

    785
    10
    Joined
    Apr 5, 2004
    [​IMG] posting for later.
     
  13. dusty jordans

    dusty jordans

    253
    10
    Joined
    Aug 13, 2008
    they belong in libraries and no where around my school..
     
  14. stateofsingularity

    stateofsingularity

    618
    10
    Joined
    Dec 25, 2006
    We are simply the noblest, most intelligent, strongest, most independent, kindest, gentlest, warmest, most peace loving people in history.

    In a Libertarian society, one could voluntarily forfeit their right to vote, and still feel comfortable and confident that their lives and chattel will not beintruded upon.
     
  15. daytona 5000

    daytona 5000

    11,949
    497
    Joined
    Sep 24, 2008
    You forgot humble too famo
     
  16. stateofsingularity

    stateofsingularity

    618
    10
    Joined
    Dec 25, 2006
    This, a libertarian is essentially a glorified conservative.

    Wrong, sir.

    A Libertarian is nothing like a conservative. I am a Libertarian. I believe a woman has the right to an abortion, pre-viability. I believe that homosexualityis perfectly fine and acceptable. I believe that voluntary drug use is perfectly acceptable among adults. I believe that prostitution is fine - if boxers andfootball players can rent out their bodies, why not prostitutes. I believe in the separation of church and state.

    Now tell me - what is "conservative" about any of that?

    The main thing we share with the Conservatives is fiscal restraint and responsibility - and no - Neo Cons like Bush/Cheney et al are not conservatives
     
  17. ctdaprince

    ctdaprince

    942
    10
    Joined
    Nov 10, 2007
     
  18. adamsd11

    adamsd11

    163
    10
    Joined
    Nov 20, 2007
    Wrong, sir.

    A Libertarian is nothing like a conservative. I am a Libertarian. I believe a woman has the right to an abortion, pre-viability. I believe that homosexuality is perfectly fine and acceptable. I believe that voluntary drug use is perfectly acceptable among adults. I believe that prostitution is fine - if boxers and football players can rent out their bodies, why not prostitutes. I believe in the separation of church and state.

    Now tell me - what is "conservative" about any of that?

    The main thing we share with the Conservatives is fiscal restraint and responsibility - and no - Neo Cons like Bush/Cheney et al are not conservatives


    This. Libertarians generally believe that a government's role should be minimal and allow people to live their lives. A government shouldprotect its borders and maintain roads and only a couple other facets of life. Obviously, not every party is perfect, but to just label it a "glorifiedconservative" and that's all, is a little unfair imo.

    My stance on politics: If you belong to a party, and have good reasons to back it up. Good. We're all not going to agree because we all have differentbackgrounds. The important thing is to understand this and be open minded.
     
  19. da703trailblaza

    da703trailblaza

    785
    10
    Joined
    Apr 5, 2004
    Libertarians (well most) are anti violence and war. Show me a conservative who doesn't believe in hard power I'll sell you my share of the BrooklynBridge.
     
  20. rexanglorum

    rexanglorum

    3,738
    5,371
    Joined
    Jun 29, 2004
    I will be blunt here, pretty much all of you guys who have posted are talking out of your backsides and you obviously have very little knowledge ofLibertarianism (You're cool essential, we can disagree on policy here and there but we both have the decency to accept that the other person's beliefsare what that person truly believes is best for society).

    I was thinking of opening up with a more friendly or disarming line but most of what has been said in this thread reaks of ignorance, arrogance, prejudice andoutright lies and slander that if it were not for my practice of Buddhism and martial arts, which teach restraint and to avoid anger, would have my bloodboiling. As it is I am still some what upset but from here on out I will attempt to calmly explain my beliefs to you and hopefully correct some of theassumptions that you have made.

    First, let me briefly give you an overview about Libertarianism. The most important thing to know is that Libertarians were Liberals before Socialists andCommunists and Progressives stole that term in the 1930's in America (and conservatives helped to cement that theft by making "liberal" into aslur). Libertarians or Classical Liberals see government for what it is, a sledge hammer whose primary function is the ability to bring coercive force to bear.While coercive force is needed at times and while the state can do some things well and sometimes do things better than non state actors, we Libertarians haveour doubts that it can do most things better than non state actors can. We see government as a blunt instrument and we disagree that that blunt instrument canbe wielded like a scalpel and be used to delicately yet drastically remake complex things like our society, culture, language and economy and do so in a waythat would, on balance, make the situation better.

    Every reference to Liberals made before 1930 and every reference to Liberals made outside of the US is to Libertarians. Libertarians or Classical Liberals werethe ones who were the first to oppose slavery, to support women's rights, to end corporal punishment (in the 19th century many states still whipped peopleand put them in stocks), to give more rights to those accused of committing crime, to make our heads of state increasingly subject to the rule of law (if itwere not for people like us we would all still be living under absolute monarchies and theocracies), to oppose state sanctioned discrimination (remember thatit was the state that enacted and enforced segregation), to end the military draft, to oppose imperialist wars overseas and today we oppose the drug war andother economic, foreign and social policies that harm society as a whole and degrade the concept of peace, harmony and human rights, dignity and autonomy. Imake no apologies for those beliefs of mine.

    Second, you guys need to understand that Libertarians have no "purity test" we have no Sarah Palin, we have no Keith Olbermann, no Rush Limbaugh andno Ed Schultz types to make sure that there is "message discipline" or that people are willing to lie about what they believe for the good of apolitical figure or party. Being open and welcoming is a double edged sword especially in the last year or two because radical right wing conservatives, whoare upset with the GOP for not being conservative enough for their liking have decided to call themselves "Libertarians" because they think it meansa really conservative person, it does not but they insist on using that term and causing confusion for the general public, which already is woefully underexposed to Libertarian ideas (as presented by Libertarians not Socialists and Neo Cons who have no idea). The good thing about welcoming diversity is thatamong actual Libertarians we have a shared belief that government should be used sparingly but the definition of "sparingly" is very broad and thatbrings me to my third point.

    Among Libertarians there is a whole spectrum of beliefs about the proper role of government. On one end of the spectrum are people like myself who are"small 'l'" libertarians or social-market libertarians or liberal-tarians. People like myself want to combine the benefits of a free marketsuch as growth, full employment, falling real prices and consumer choice with items from the welfare state that are, in my view, good (in that they increasethe total utility in society) like a negative income tax (welfare payments that do not punish work, marriage, deferring child birth and other activities thatreduce one's chances of living in poverty. This negative income tax also gives money to the working poor, a group that is overlooked by our current welfarestate), school vouchers/school choice for parents of all income levels, contracting government services to private firms if it is a better value to tax payerthen having it be done by a government run enterprise and anything else that can use resources that will create more happiness then if those same resourceswere in private hands. I am on the most socialist or statist wing of Libertarianism and I get some criticism from Libertarians who are more from the AynRand/Ludwig von Mises, Minirchist school of thought. Between those extremes is where most Libertarians sit.


    I hope that the last few paragraphs may have clarified things for those who have not had a chance to hear from an actual Libertarian. I also hope I have madeit clearer who is NOT a libertarian, Glenn Beck is not, most tea baggers are not, anarchists are not and those who think that the GOP is not sociallyconservative enough most certainly are not. Before I finish, I need to address this truly vile and loathsome passage.

    "Libertarianism is becoming really popular among spoiled kids these days. It hails individual privilege over all else and forsakes any sort of socialobligation that isn't 100% voluntary. It's really the pinnacle of privilege, because they're bristling at the MINIMAL constraints on their freedomthat absolutely pale in comparison with the constraints imposed on the truly disadvantaged. On top of everything else, they're so spoiled as to whine thatthey shouldn't be made to feel guilty or responsible for the suffering of others - even though, in the current free market system, their privilege, theiradvantage, their surplus, is a PRODUCT of that suffering."

    Wow, there is so much that is wrong here but I will try to be brief and hit on the key points.

    "Libertarianism is becoming really popular among spoiled kids these days...

    Your point being? Go to a college campus, especially an expensive and/or elite college or university and talk to "spoiled kids" and you will find themajority of them are Obama Democrats (center left) and Olbermann Democrats (far left) and then after that, especially if the school is Christian or is in theSouth, you will find Sarah Palin Republicans/Neo Cons. Every political point of view will have its advocates who are affluent and are sometimes obnoxious butthe fact that a belief or movement is embraced by people who are unpopular does not invalidate that movement or belief. The author is trying to dismissLibertarianism/Liberalism as some fad for the rich. Luckily, the belief in personal freedom is not a fad and we should thank anyone who has contributed to thecause of human freedom if it were not for people like us the very concept of personal rights and equality would not even exist.

    "…It hails individual privilege over all else and forsakes any sort of social obligation that isn't 100% voluntary. It's really the pinnacleof privilege..."

    This is the most odious part of this passage because it dismisses rights, human and civil, as mere privileges. It also deliberately confuses legal rights(which can and should be as unconstrained as possible) with the economic reality of scarcity. These are two different things but the author is somehow implyingthat having a lot of legal rights creates poverty for others. Personal freedom, dignity, privacy and autonomy are not privileges to be granted by tyrants, norare they costs imposed on anyone who is not privileged (how ever our author wants to define that) they are our birth rights, everyone's birth right nowmatter how rich or poor you are, and anyone who comes to take them away should be stopped. Anything less is aiding and abetting tyranny. It is not about leftor right anymore it is about up or down, up into a world of personal freedom and protection from the caprices of a capricious state or down back into the swampof autocracy and universal slavery. I will not go to that place where the author wants to take us.

    "…Because they're bristling at the MINIMAL constraints on their freedom that absolutely pale in comparison with the constraints imposed on thetruly disadvantaged. On top of everything else, they're so spoiled as to whine that they shouldn't be made to feel guilty or responsible for thesuffering of others…"

    Free people should bristle at any infringement on their personal freedom. Now, since I am not an anarchist and I do recognize a legitimate and vital rolefor government, there are some instances where a government, operating within the narrow constraints of the law, has to use coercive power and if it limiteditself to just that, there would be much less protest from myself and fellow Libertarians. Unfortunately, the Government of the United States has gradually butsteadily eroded our personal freedoms on many fronts. To point out that fact and to work to stop the rising tide of tyranny should not be dismissed as whining.

    Once again, unless you like corporal punishment, torture, debtor's prisons, women as chattel, ethnic and religious minorities relegated to second and thirdclass status and military conscription, you should be thankful that there were people who had the courage to "whine" and change the situation. I hopethat we can whine more and more frequently in the future and get rid of such evils and fallacies such as the belief in firms that are "too big tofail," giving certain firms selective access to the treasury, or having a central banks that has decided to become a central planner through its use ofhelping politically favored firms. I also hope that the whines and groans will be loud enough to one day end that disastrous war on drugs, something that isindeed responsible for a great deal of suffering.

    I will close by saying that the author of that quote knows very little about Libertarianism. He cannot distinguish it from Conservatism and he certainly hasnot done his homework at all on what Libertarianism actually believe and why we believe it. Who ever wrote this should brush up on his history and might beginto see that after thousands of years of pain, suffering, poverty, misery, bondage and degradation to the human spirit that has been inflicted upon us bystates, with to much power, why there would be an intellectual movement that expresses its disgust with states that abuse their monopoly of the use of force.One of the themes of history has been the conflict between the person and the state and over the long sweep of history, despite many backslides and setbacks,the tide is moving away from a world where individual freedoms and human rights were ignored. We are moving our way into a world where coercion will play asmaller and smaller role in our lives.

    We are moving away from parochialism and provincialism. Humanity's course is towards a world with less coercion, less conflict, less prejudices, morecommunication and more mutual understanding and it is Liberalism (today known in the United States as Libertarianism), not government edicts or coercion, thathas set the world in it very promising trajectory. Those who embrace plurality and individual freedoms will be the ones who will ascend faster because thosewho take the old, combative, pro coercive view of the world will be weighed down until they see the error of their ways and embrace what they currently malignas some haughty cult of the selfish and the wealthy.

    Reasonable people can disagree about policy but I thought that all civilized people could agree that human rights and individual liberty make up the cornerstones of a better world. Sadly it seems like there are still some who consider rights to be "privilege" and are centuries behind those who at thevanguard of humanity. Luckily, for those lost minds that are lost at this moment, I and my fellow Libertarians are Liberals, in the truest sense of the word, and we are willing to be open, willing to forgive, and willing to embrace anyone who is willing drop claims that he orshe or they should be our master.
     
  21. stateofsingularity

    stateofsingularity

    618
    10
    Joined
    Dec 25, 2006
    ����
     
  22. moderate gatsby

    moderate gatsby

    1,530
    10
    Joined
    Jul 12, 2007
    [​IMG] Rex just laying it down.
     
  23. theta

    theta

    1,357
    10
    Joined
    Aug 3, 2009
    Incredible post. Overall, I agree with 98% of what you said (I, personally, am from the von Mises Libertarian school so the thing about negativeincome tax wasnt ideal - however, I still admit that its miles better than the current excuse for an incentive system that we have now).

    My overall intention in creating this post was to see the general perspective on the third largest poltiical party in the United States and the results areoverall, pretty astuounding. Almost nobody knows who they are or what they believe in. I dont know whether this is indicative of the American population'sgeneral ignorance or of the LP's failure to get their message across to the masses (however I'm inclined towards the former).

    The quote that Dirty posted was interestingly useless. I tried to find a source for it with a few minutes of google search and had difficulty. Overall, its aslightly more articulate verison of the general ignorance seen.
     
  24. los yankees

    los yankees

    564
    10
    Joined
    Sep 9, 2009



    Wow, this has to be one of the worst explanations ever. "Minimal" constraints? There is nothing "minimal" about illegally confiscatingearned income or private property for the "collective". This government purposely makes the tax code difficult to understand so it can force us topay for it. I guess this person is very comfoartable with unconstitutional coercive direct taxes on personal property which the very disadvantaged which isaround 45% do not even pay. Ludwig von Mises destroys this quote in his book Socialism.

    This is my thing with this quote. This person clearly does not understand the constraints that are in the constitution and you wonder why our governmentcontinues to infringe on our rights, because they know that the vast majority of Americans do not know the governments constraints. Coercive taxation to fundan over expanded government and worthless programs that have done ZERO. The one obligation that the government should be doing is protect us and they cant evendo that even with listening to phone calls and emails. There is a great famous quote by former Sen. Joseph Clarke defined "liberalism" as...

     
  25. essential1

    essential1

    29,577
    4,311
    Joined
    Aug 2, 2008
    [​IMG] . Oh boy.