Should I be a Libertarian?

[Pale Rider]

So this is a Libertarian. Is this good or bad?


The World's Shortest
Libertarian FAQ
The web contains numerous resources on the subject of libertarianism, including some very extensive FAQ's that can be pretty daunting for someone who just wants to know the basics. I have therefore created this short FAQ to cover the topics that (in my experience) come up most often when I am talking about libertarianism to the uninitiated:

What the heck is a libertarian?
What's this I hear about "minarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism"?
Why do libertarians sometimes call themselves classical liberals?

What the heck is a libertarian?
I will offer three definitions:
1. The simple definition. A libertarian is someone who, in general, supports government policies that favor individual liberty in all matters, whether economic, personal, or social.

Libertarians are frequently characterized as "conservative on economic issues and liberal on personal issues." That's not a bad definition, but it's kind of like saying vodka is "half screwdriver and half white Russian." It implies that libertarians are being inconsistent, whereas in fact libertarianism is more consistent than either conservatism or liberalism. I prefer to say, "Conservatives are frequently libertarian on economic issues, and liberals are frequently libertarian on personal issues." (I would also say that conservatives are usually authoritarian on personal issues, and liberals are usually authoritarian on economic issues.)

A list of policies that most libertarians support would include: legalization of drugs, legalization of all consensual sexual acts between consenting adults (including sodomy and prostitution), abolition of government censorship in all its forms (including restrictions on pornography), free trade, noninterventionist foreign policy, abolition of rent control, abolition of the minimum wage, abolition of farm and business subsidies, abolition of arts subsidies, privatization of Social Security, abolition of welfare, and drastic reduction of taxes.

For a decent indicator of whether you are a libertarian according to the simple definition, take the World's Shortest Political Quiz.

2. The more complex, philosophical definition. A libertarian is someone who, as a general rule, supports the non-aggression ethic (or as some people call it, the non-aggression axiom, or NGA). The non-aggression ethic holds, to quote David Boaz's Libertarianism: A Primer, that "No one has the right to initiate aggression against the person or property of anyone else."

Two phrases in this statement bear special emphasis. The first is "initiation of aggression." Libertarians strongly support the right of individuals to respond to aggression against them -- i.e., everyone has the right of self defense. What libertarians oppose is the initiation of force (or aggression) against others.

The second important phrase is "no one." Libertarians believe that no means no. People do not acquire the right to initiate aggression against others simply because they are agents of the state, or because they get the majority of people to agree with them. The key issue is not who uses aggression, but rather the purpose for which it is used. Libertarians believe, for the most part, that aggression is only justified if used to limit the initiation of aggression by others.

3. The crass political definition. A Libertarian (note the capital L) is a member of the Libertarian Party, a national political party in the United States. A libertarian and a Libertarian are not necessarily the same thing, but in general, the LP advocates policies that libertarians (small l) are likely to support.

The LP's official Statement of Principles says, "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." That's a pretty good statement of the motivating ideal behind libertarianism. Nonetheless, many libertarians decline to support the LP for various reasons, most often the perception that the LP is ineffective or dominated by especially dogmatic libertarians.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/libFAQ.html

[Gaffer]

I can't be a libertarian because of the first policy they support. I don't believe in legalizing drugs.

[Pale Rider]

I can't be a libertarian because of the first policy they support. I don't believe in legalizing drugs.

I can't either be a libertarian, for the same reason and others.

I'm for starting a new party called, "NINE O'CLOCK, MY PLACE"...

[musicman]

CENTRIST

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 30%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 50%

That's fair enough, as polls go, I guess. But, what it doesn't factor in is my concept of just who and what constitute, "government". In a properly operating representative republic, the government=US. This truth tends to get swallowed up in the verbiage sometimes - which is a shame. It is the essence of self-government.

[Hobbit]

I'm mostly libertarian. I don't support all of their platforms 100%, but the general philosophy is one I vehemently embrace, that is, that the government should be small. At the very least, the federal government needs to be small.

As far as drug and prostitution legalization, I'm neither 100% for or against. Legalizing drugs will make them more accessable, and the consequences of their use will go up, much like legalizing prostitution (even if you throw in a bunch of 'safe sex' stuff) will likely cause a rise in unwanted pregnancies and STDs. However, in the context of our other laws, both of these laws make little sense. If consenting adults can have sex whenever, wherever, and can even be paid to do so on camera, why can't one pay another for the service? As far as drugs, I understand the horrid dangers of things like meth and heroin, but marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, and the government actually pays subsidies for both of these. We should at least be consistent.

[KarlMarx]

I can't say that legalizing drugs will solve the problem. For one thing, if you legalize them, the price will likely go down, which as the law of supply and demand dictates, will increase demand.

Can you imagine if cocaine were legalized again? You'll eventually have a lot of addicts. I don't relish the idea of being on a plane where one of the crew is a coke head.

Since I believe that public morality is a cornerstone for a people to remain free, I don't believe that legalizing prostitution or drugs will help our society. From what I understand, the Roman Republic remained one so long as its people were somewhat virtuous. The excesses of Caligula, Nero and others all occured when the Republic was replaced by a system of Emperors-for-life.

[Insein]

I can't say that legalizing drugs will solve the problem. For one thing, if you legalize them, the price will likely go down, which as the law of supply and demand dictates, will increase demand.

Can you imagine if cocaine were legalized again? You'll eventually have a lot of addicts. I don't relish the idea of being on a plane where one of the crew is a coke head.

Since I believe that public morality is a cornerstone for a people to remain free, I don't believe that legalizing prostitution or drugs will help our society. From what I understand, the Roman Republic remained one so long as its people were somewhat virtuous. The excesses of Caligula, Nero and others all occured when the Republic was replaced by a system of Emperors-for-life.

The idea would be the same. Drugs shouldnt be mandated by the federal government. I do believe that company and industry policies for drug use would still remain the same. I don't believe the airline industry would up and say that they endorse having coke heads as their pilots. Wouldnt set a good example.

What would happen is that the public would decide the morality again and not the government. IF certain actions were morally reprehensible like prostitution and drug use, then the public could vote to have them removed from the public forum. But what people do in the privacy of their own homes with consenting adults is not the government's business. As long as those actions don't spill over into the public (driving while impaired, hookers on a street corner near a school) then they should be allowed.

[Powerman]

I can't be a libertarian because of the first policy they support. I don't believe in legalizing drugs.

Well I'm not really hard core libertarian on this issue but I think that it's pretty insane that marijuana is illegal while alcohol and tobacco are not. I don't think that smoking weed is a good thing, but I do think that there would be positive benefits of legalizing it.

1. You can regulate it and tax it
2. It takes revenue away from criminals (do you honestly think your local weed dealer could compete with the business savvy and bulk purchasing power of corporations?)
3. I think if you believe that weed is a gateway drug then you should be in favor of legalizing it. It can only be a gateway drug if it is illegal. Otherwise it's just like alcohol. Everyone will use it but since you're not going beyond the realm of the law, you reduce the gateway effect.

This is where the war on drugs has it all wrong. Everyone wants to pretend that weed is really terrible and dangerous, which it isn't. Then people try weed and think that the government is also full of shit when it tells you that drugs like coke and heroin are dangerous and addictive. WRONG!

If we were just honest with ourselves and acknowledged that marijuana is less destructive and harmful than alcohol and legalized only that drug, I think things would be better for all parties.

[Nuc]

I can't be a libertarian because of the first policy they support. I don't believe in legalizing drugs.

Grow up. Drugs are legal. Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and a host of idiotic prescription drugs are totally legal. Pre teens have to watch commercials advising people to "call your doctor if you have an erection that lasts more than four hours" in regards to sex provoking legal drugs. To say that drugs shouldn't be legal is tantamount to admitting that you do not understand reality.

[glockmail]

I can't be a libertarian because of the first policy they support. I don't believe in legalizing drugs.

If someone wnats to get high, so what? Just don't nationalize health care at the same time.

[Hobbit]

I can't be a libertarian because of the first policy they support. I don't believe in legalizing drugs.

That's a position of the Libertarian party, and while it is shared by many libertarian people, it is not a requirement of being a libertarian, much like it is possible to be a pro-war liberal or a pro-choice conservative.

[Roomy]

It all depends on whether you really like books or not I suppose, and is the pay any good?

[LOki]

I'm mostly libertarian. I don't support all of their platforms 100%, but the general philosophy is one I vehemently embrace, that is, that the government should be small. At the very least, the federal government needs to be small.

TESTIFY!

As far as drug and prostitution legalization, I'm neither 100% for or against. Legalizing drugs will make them more accessable, and the consequences of their use will go up, much like legalizing prostitution (even if you throw in a bunch of 'safe sex' stuff) will likely cause a rise in unwanted pregnancies and STDs. However, in the context of our other laws, both of these laws make little sense. If consenting adults can have sex whenever, wherever, and can even be paid to do so on camera, why can't one pay another for the service? As far as drugs, I understand the horrid dangers of things like meth and heroin, but marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, and the government actually pays subsidies for both of these. We should at least be consistent.

I don't think greater accessibilty means greater use. Right now it's easier for an 8th grader to get into a bag of crack than a case of beer.

Idon't mind the notion of legalizing hard drugs, because I don't mind the notion of competing against meth-heads and stoners for jobs, or burying them when they finally poision or jackass themselves to death.

I can't say that legalizing drugs will solve the problem. For one thing, if you legalize them, the price will likely go down, which as the law of supply and demand dictates, will increase demand.

Meat flavored icecream is pretty cheap, but the demand is low.

Can you imagine if cocaine were legalized again? You'll eventually have a lot of addicts. I don't relish the idea of being on a plane where one of the crew is a coke head.

Yes, but I might not have any problem with you being on a plane piloted by a coke-head. Legalizing drug use does not mandate tolerating it on the job.

Since I believe that public morality is a cornerstone for a people to remain free, I don't believe that legalizing prostitution or drugs will help our society.

I believe morality cannot be legislated, or rightly be defined by legislation. Legislation is the means by which government protects us from the coercion and fraud of others--not the weaknesses of will and delusion of ourselves.