Explaining Libertarianism

[Kathianne]

A good read:

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/top-10-ways-talk-about-libertarianism

Pretty much reflects my own take. I notice that absence of foreign policy.

I do wish there were more conservatives with libertarian tendencies running as 'libertarians.' The 'conservatives' aren't cutting it.

[fj1200]

^Nice. It all starts with education as I like to point out.

[Voted4Reagan]

Libertarianism?

Kinda like eating a peanut butter and Jelly sandwich without the bread.......

[fj1200]

Libertarianism?

Kinda like eating a peanut butter and Jelly sandwich without the bread.......

Beg pardon?

Seeing as what we have now is PB&J with a sizable portion of tuna... yum.

[taft2012]

Libertarian: A liberal who has grown frustrated trying to use the liberal agenda to legalize marijuana, and who now uses the conservative agenda to try to legalize marijuana.

[bingster]

Libertarian: A liberal who has grown frustrated trying to use the liberal agenda to legalize marijuana, and who now uses the conservative agenda to try to legalize marijuana.

Actually, liberals aren't 100% comfortable with Libertarians either. Historically, Libertarians have been against all government and therefore were/are against civil rights laws i.e. if it's your store, you should be able to refuse service to blacks.

Libertarian candidates take votes from both Republicans and Democrats.

[fj1200]

Actually, liberals aren't 100% comfortable with Libertarians either. Historically, Libertarians have been against all government and therefore were/are against civil rights laws i.e. if it's your store, you should be able to refuse service to blacks.

Libertarian candidates take votes from both Republicans and Democrats.

Why would a Libertarian be supportive of state control over certain segments of the population? That seems to be a liberal position.

[bingster]

Why would a Libertarian be supportive of state control over certain segments of the population? That seems to be a liberal position.

Well, that's your misinterpretation of the liberal cause. I'll have to send you some socialist propaganda.

[Kathianne]

Why would a Libertarian be supportive of state control over certain segments of the population? That seems to be a liberal position.

Some libertarians are anti-government, very close to anarchists, I'll not disagree with that take.

However, there has been a rapid rise in 'conservatives' leaning libertarian. Socially moderate to liberal; economically libertarian.

Government should not be in bedrooms or even family rooms or kitchen. Your sexual orientation is really not the business of government. What you own is yours, not on loan by the government. Government is a necessary evil, that can only be checked by an informed and noisy public.

These 'conservative libertarians' do not believe that if the US becomes less 'involved' in the world, that peace and prosperity will necessarily follow. They are certainly less likely to believe that other countries will become more peaceful, if just given enough bribes, aid, as the Democrats seem to believe. Nor do they believe that all countries are just democracies just waiting to burst out from under tyrants.

[Kathianne]

Libertarian: A liberal who has grown frustrated trying to use the liberal agenda to legalize marijuana, and who now uses the conservative agenda to try to legalize marijuana.

I don't smoke pot, I just don't care if you do or not. I think the police have enough to do of more importance that messing with folks that are messing up their own minds. I know the courts have more important issues to deal with and the jails shouldn't be teaching the weak minded, more tricks.

If folks want to waste their health on such things, let them share the tax burden with those that smoke cigarettes and drink. Collect those fines, taxes.

[bingster]

Some libertarians are anti-government, very close to anarchists, I'll not disagree with that take.

However, there has been a rapid rise in 'conservatives' leaning libertarian. Socially moderate to liberal; economically libertarian.

Government should not be in bedrooms or even family rooms or kitchen. Your sexual orientation is really not the business of government. What you own is yours, not on loan by the government. Government is a necessary evil, that can only be checked by an informed and noisy public.

These 'conservative libertarians' do not believe that if the US becomes less 'involved' in the world, that peace and prosperity will necessarily follow. They are certainly less likely to believe that other countries will become more peaceful, if just given enough bribes, aid, as the Democrats seem to believe. Nor do they believe that all countries are just democracies just waiting to burst out from under tyrants.

I couldn't agree with you more regarding most of your post. However, really, if you think the Democrats are the only ones bribing other countries, well, ......actually, I don't believe it. You're too smart for that. You're kidding right?

[Robert A Whit]

A good read:

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/top-10-ways-talk-about-libertarianism

Pretty much reflects my own take. I notice that absence of foreign policy.

I do wish there were more conservatives with libertarian tendencies running as 'libertarians.' The 'conservatives' aren't cutting it.

It would seem you would have supported me given that I totally endorse what that CATO article says.

Didn't you support Anton during his racist attack on me? I noted your thanks to him.


Libertarianism?

Kinda like eating a peanut butter and Jelly sandwich without the bread.......

Yup. True liberty does not shove starch or bad calories down your throat.

I am clueless why some republicans attack libertarians.


Some libertarians are anti-government, very close to anarchists, I'll not disagree with that take.

However, there has been a rapid rise in 'conservatives' leaning libertarian. Socially moderate to liberal; economically libertarian.

Government should not be in bedrooms or even family rooms or kitchen. Your sexual orientation is really not the business of government. What you own is yours, not on loan by the government. Government is a necessary evil, that can only be checked by an informed and noisy public.

These 'conservative libertarians' do not believe that if the US becomes less 'involved' in the world, that peace and prosperity will necessarily follow. They are certainly less likely to believe that other countries will become more peaceful, if just given enough bribes, aid, as the Democrats seem to believe. Nor do they believe that all countries are just democracies just waiting to burst out from under tyrants.

Government as alleged in the Constitution is very limited. We Libertarians don't mind government, we only mind that some pervert government and believe that government must be enormous or they simply can't tolerate a small government. A conservative is a libertarian in my opinion.

As to anarchy, we do not see the founders work as anarchy and we very much are devoted to the founders system of government. Being for minimum government is not the same thing as not believing in any government.

Our side created no laws to stiffle freedom.

So far, due to efforts by Democrats who sold to the public the ideology that one may steal from one group, the rich, to pay for our share, thus they don't fight to support Libertarians, rather they bought ther bill of goods Democrats sold.

Since I have cast my vote to kick off any and all rules on the personal contracts of which marriage is but one type, as my support was for homosexuals rights to contract their felationship no matter their excuse, I feel I did all I can do. I wanted them to support any marriage among women and men and include more than that, to simply get rid of rules where the law bans some from being married to each other, despite one being a man and others being women. Alas, that gets as much support as a smoking fart does in church.

I have gone so far as to tell the Feds to keep their noses out of such agreements and a free people in states will decide on such things.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by taft2012 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=614089#post614089)
Libertarian: A liberal who has grown frustrated trying to use the liberal agenda to legalize marijuana, and who now uses the conservative agenda to try to legalize marijuana.






I don't smoke pot, I just don't care if you do or not. I think the police have enough to do of more importance that messing with folks that are messing up their own minds. I know the courts have more important issues to deal with and the jails shouldn't be teaching the weak minded, more tricks.

If folks want to waste their health on such things, let them share the tax burden with those that smoke cigarettes and drink. Collect those <s>fines</s>, taxes.

We have to deal with the proper use of the term liberal vs the way Democrats use the word.

Democrats do not use the word properly.

Taft seems to think that Libertarians are the current version of liberal but they are the old fashioned liberal which means they believe in maximum freedom.

I, like Kathianne do not smoke pot and I don't use any sort of drugs. If any of you wish to put poisons into your body, again like Kathianne, I do not care so long as you pick up the tab for self induced problems and agree to also not harm others.

I believe I know the difference. I had spent from birth till about age 40 being a Democrat and of course took at face value their ideology.

Why do i vote for republicans?

Simple, were I a jockey, I would want to be on the winning horse. Democrats are way too much out of touch with the founding documents for me to support them. Had I wanted to vote for them,. I would still be a Democrat.


Actually, liberals aren't 100% comfortable with Libertarians either. Historically, Libertarians have been against all government and therefore were/are against civil rights laws i.e. if it's your store, you should be able to refuse service to blacks.

Libertarian candidates take votes from both Republicans and Democrats.

Holy cow, It would be lovely if some of the posters really understood the Libertarian view of things.

No shoes and shirt, no service. Is that prejudiced?

What about no drunks alloweed in the store! Why would you object to that?

Having an open business does not mean one gives up their right to conduct business their own way. Why do you think business can be crapped on?

We are not against government. We are against the perversion Democrats chamged it to become.

Your argument makes me believe you assess Democrats in the party to be libertarians. NOPE. They didn't like Negros but that is not the Libertarian ideal.

[DragonStryk72]

I think one major thing people confuse is that we don't want no government. That just leads to tyrrany. For instance, as to the subject of forcing the integration of schools. In that the government acted correctly, protecting the greater liberty.

However, they didn't stop there. Instead they went over the line and made a mess of things, creating what is now unfair advantage, rather than simply ensuring the liberty of the people. This has led to the devaluation of high school diplomas and college degrees across the country.

This is just a single example of how excessive government harms us in the long term. For the conservative gaff, let's go back to hurricane Katrina. After that storm, the people of new Orleans were given temporary housing in Houston, which was good. It protected life.

However, they didn't stop there. Instead, they doled out $5000 cash card that quickly fell into rampant abuse and fraud.

[Robert A Whit]

I think one major thing people confuse is that we don't want no government. That just leads to tyrrany. For instance, as to the subject of forcing the integration of schools. In that the government acted correctly, protecting the greater liberty.

However, they didn't stop there. Instead they went over the line and made a mess of things, creating what is now unfair advantage, rather than simply ensuring the liberty of the people. This has led to the devaluation of high school diplomas and college degrees across the country.

This is just a single example of how excessive government harms us in the long term. For the conservative gaff, let's go back to hurricane Katrina. After that storm, the people of new Orleans were given temporary housing in Houston, which was good. It protected life.

However, they didn't stop there. Instead, they doled out $5000 cash card that quickly fell into rampant abuse and fraud.

Hey Democrats, read this mans post again.

Thanks for that excellent explanation.

[Kathianne]

IMO, 'victims' of natural disasters, without insurance should be 'helped' for 2-3 weeks, time enough to get some plan in action. Those with insurance would be housed under their policies. If more time is needed for whatever reason, beyond that initial gratis period, should be repaid at no or low interest rate.

[bingster]

Holy cow, It would be lovely if some of the posters really understood the Libertarian view of things.

No shoes and shirt, no service. Is that prejudiced?

What about no drunks alloweed in the store! Why would you object to that?

Having an open business does not mean one gives up their right to conduct business their own way. Why do you think business can be crapped on?

We are not against government. We are against the perversion Democrats chamged it to become.

Your argument makes me believe you assess Democrats in the party to be libertarians. NOPE. They didn't like Negros but that is not the Libertarian ideal.

Dude, you should chill. Rand and father Ron Paul are Libertarians and have always been against the 1964 civil rights act-for the reason I stated. I'm not perverting, distorting, or even moralizing. It wasn't even an argument. You don't have to read ill or warped intentions into everything. My statement was not drenched in icky liberal juice or anything.

[Kathianne]

Dude, you should chill. Rand and father Ron Paul are Libertarians and have always been against the 1964 civil rights act-for the reason I stated. I'm not perverting, distorting, or even moralizing. It wasn't even an argument. You don't have to read ill or warped intentions into everything. My statement was not drenched in icky liberal juice or anything.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but there are vast differences folks like Ron Paul and those I'm referring to. Ron Paul really hadn't a chance to win, despite his Stormfront type of support. Many battled the Paulististas on the basis of his own racist writings and didn't buy that he was clueless on his name appeared on some of those rantings.

[Robert A Whit]

Dude, you should chill. Rand and father Ron Paul are Libertarians and have always been against the 1964 civil rights act-for the reason I stated. I'm not perverting, distorting, or even moralizing. It wasn't even an argument. You don't have to read ill or warped intentions into everything. My statement was not drenched in icky liberal juice or anything.

Why is it feasable for Democrats to claim they have a big tent or the republicans to say the same?

But we who believe in the Libertarian ideology, e.g. founding fathers, must be funnelled so tightly we are claimed to believe a very narrow amount of things?

I have not verified your claim about the 64 civil rights law but am well versed in the history and voting and outcome of said law.

Many people believe that the law was not needed. I believe they believe that all needed rights were already in the constitution thus the 64 law only acted as a mechanism to merely tie the public down into a veyr narrow form of law.

No matter. In my state, to wit: CA, we already had very powerful laws to ... gasp, siphon out a few and hand them special rights.

For instance, before 1964, if you owned a building in CA and wanted to rent it out, if there was a hint you wanted to ban Negros, it was illegal. While the boys in DC worked to get up the nerve to have such laws, CA already had such laws on our books.

But one crafty Broker I knew in the early 1970s, apparently trying to have a loophole in our law, put up ads in the local paper that stated if you came from any Oakland, CA zipcode, and color was not the issue, do not apply for any of the properties she managed.

The state learned of this and quickly took away her license. She did not mention race ever. But the State decided that Oakland by having enough negros only could mean she banned only negros.

Her records proved she also banned white people for also being from Oakland.

This state is so bad on such things that even though she never used race, they took away her license.

To me, this is as bad as what the Nazis did over what they saw as race.

I am saying however that since CA had already handled the problem, why was it even created as a new law. Both Pauls probably meant that were it an issue for their state, let their state come up with the answer.

**************

Food for thouight. Another matter.

Look at the word answer.

Who says it as spelled?

ANS ... WER

I say ANS IR

Similar to Ansure

What happened to put in the letter W?

What a dumb way to create a language.

I liked GErman for it's habit of saing a word as spelled.

If you could pronounce a letter, you could also figure out the word.

Tag is day.

In English it sounds like bag but you take off the B and make it a T.

Bag

Tag

German uses it different.

Taaaahhhh g

Not A

Aaaaahhhh

So if you encounter a word with a letter followed by ag, it was always said the same way.

Who understands the linguistics of the english language?

English hand is spelled as it is said. Say haaaa nd.

German word for hand is also spelled hand.

But they say it as Handt. A as in ahhhh

I think that the Brits say words more similar to German though I probably am in error. Any ideas?


Dude, you should chill. Rand and father Ron Paul are Libertarians and have always been against the 1964 civil rights act-for the reason I stated. I'm not perverting, distorting, or even moralizing. It wasn't even an argument. You don't have to read ill or warped intentions into everything. My statement was not drenched in icky liberal juice or anything.

The Democrats are the mother that invented racism.

But they walk the fastest to the door trying to escape that stench.

I at least admit that it was the republicans that caused the 1964 civil rightrs to pass, keeping with their rather stong and long standing fight against racism.

Yes, they fought the democrats and then won.

My question is how the hell did so many democrats end up in the North given they really did not like the negros?

Democrats remind me of scavengers. They realize they are on the wrong side so they try to pretend it was them that created fair laws. But they fought the republicans like mad men until as fate would have it, Democrats lost. When they lost, they pretended they had won.

Negros bought this crap hook line and sinker.
The greatest con job ever pulled by Democrats is they fought for negros.

Bull shit. They did no such thing.

Martin Luther King was for many reasons a very strong Republican.

[fj1200]

Well, that's your misinterpretation of the liberal cause. I'll have to send you some socialist propaganda.

One misinterpretation for another then right? It was another of your broadcloth statements. Besides, are you telling me that liberals don't advocate more control than Libertarians?

And as far as Libertarians advocating property rights, no question, but then you've got to ask if the Civil Rights Act was more helpful than if not passed at all. Not that the CRA wasn't a necessary evil at the time but it should be looked at critically.


Some libertarians are anti-government, very close to anarchists, I'll not disagree with that take.

I don't think anyone said that. Libertarians acknowledge a role for government, limited of course, but a role nonetheless.

[Little-Acorn]

Libertarianism *is* conservatism. The idea that individuals should make their own decisions, take their own chances, help each other when they need help, and sink or swim by their own efforts and the consequences of those efforts. Conservatives (including Libertarians) believe that government's only function is to keep other people from interfering with your rights. Not to decide how fast your toilet flows, or "provide" health insurance for you, or protect you from the ordinary problems of life, or etc.

The only real difference, centers around the idea that, if somebody far away is making plans and building machines to hurt you, and cannot be dissuaded by diplomacy or negotiation, should you go over there and pound on him to keep him from doing it? Conservatives say Yes. Libertarians say No.

Some people mistake Republicans for Conservatives. For instance, they think that conservatives want to force their own religions on others, which actually conservatives don't want to do at all, but some Republicans do. Keep in mind that "conservative" is a philosophy that has not changed in a hundred years or more; while "Republican" is merely a political party, whose philosophy CAN change, and has changed over the years.

Libertarians' biggest problem, aside from the foreign-policy situation I described above, is that they are lousy at persuading others to agree with them. Conservatives are a little better at it, though not much.

[Little-Acorn]

Aw, come on. Nobody has any reply to that???

[Kathianne]

One misinterpretation for another then right? It was another of your broadcloth statements. Besides, are you telling me that liberals don't advocate more control than Libertarians?

And as far as Libertarians advocating property rights, no question, but then you've got to ask if the Civil Rights Act was more helpful than if not passed at all. Not that the CRA wasn't a necessary evil at the time but it should be looked at critically.



I don't think anyone said that. Libertarians acknowledge a role for government, limited of course, but a role nonetheless.

Actually Bingster pretty much did so, I was mistaken to quote off your post.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Aw, come on. Nobody has any reply to that???

I agree with it. My reply is bravo.. :salute:--Tyr
Dems have spent vast sums spewing propaganda that misrepresents the Conservatives and the Christians.
Add in with that the liberal education indoctrination system that we currently call schools and the confusion is complete.

[DragonStryk72]

Dude, you should chill. Rand and father Ron Paul are Libertarians and have always been against the 1964 civil rights act-for the reason I stated. I'm not perverting, distorting, or even moralizing. It wasn't even an argument. You don't have to read ill or warped intentions into everything. My statement was not drenched in icky liberal juice or anything.

The republicans are not libertarians, they're republicans.