Libertarians - What do they beleive?

[vmsfreaky1 0]

Just curious as to what they beleive heard differing views. Please 'splain.

[Kennedy 0]

http://www.lp.org

Quote

The Libertarian Party is committed to America's heritage of freedom:
individual liberty and personal responsibility
a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[bluestreak 0]

Wow!
It sounds like you've been preparing to say that for a while! Very well worded my good man, very well! Although, I imagine your definition can still draw some confusion. Maybe it would be simpler to just say that Libertarians (generally) desire, at this time, a lessening of control by the hands of Federal and State gov't. Suffice?? No???

[lawrocket 3]

Yep. A lessening of the level of governments, especially the federal government.

We view society as a contract.

We think government should be there to enforce a couple fo key laws: 1) Keep your hands to yourself; and 2) Mind your own business, unless there's an honest buck to be made.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Kennedy 0]

I can't take the credit, I just quoted that off the top of their site.

But yes, I do happen to agree with the vast majority of their positions (free trade is an oissue with me, I prefer the US look out for it's own interests and then everyone else's).

The single best articulation of foreign policy ideas that I agree with have been published by Pat Buchannon. They guy may be nuts when it comes to domestic affairs, but he is right on in the foreign arena.

ps - please don't judge his ideas until you read what he actually has to say, you will be pleasantly surprised. I say this because so many people think of what they have heard about him (negatives) and they discount him without ever listening.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kelpdiver 2]

They start with the claimed GOP motto of 'best government governs least' but don't stop when it comes to allowing people to have fun (drugs, sex, whatever).

Where they start losing people is the belief that the government should provide virtually nothing beyond protective services and essentially means no schools.

[Kennedy 0]

Sorry for the second post, but this seemed like a different topic.

If you want to look more specifically at some of their positions, check here:

http://www.lp.org/issues/

Quote

The Libertarian Party on Today's Issues:
- Corruption & Campaign Reform
- Crime & Violence
- Drug Prohibition
- Economy & Employment
- Education
- Environment
- Family Budgets
- Foreign Policy
- Freedom Of Speech
- Gun Laws
- Health Care
- Internet
- Immigration
- Poverty & Welfare
- Privacy
- Social Security
- Taxes

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[TomAiello 26]

Basically, Libertarians believe that the government shouldn't tell you what to do in any aspect of your life. What you do in your bedroom, what you do with your money, what you do in your faith--these are all up to you, and government should stay out.

There is an excellent book called Libertarianism in One Lesson available here that sums up the basic underpinnings of Libertarianism in one sentence:

You own yourself.

No one else owns you--not your community, not the government, no one.

You one no one else--not your family, not your friends, not your spouse.

I've been a practicing Libertarian for about 12 years. I've been to Libertarian seminars, read Libertarian books, donated to Libertarian causes--I even met my wife at a Libertarian event. I can write at more length later, but just now I've got to run.

P.S. If you go to the LP website you can take the political quiz there--that ought to give you a pretty good idea of what Libertarians generally believe.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mailin 0]

Quote

Where they start losing people is the belief that the government should provide virtually nothing beyond protective services and essentially means no schools.

Actually, if you take a closer look at the platform you will see that they ask that the FEDERAL governement back out of those things and put them back where they belong - with the states and the people.

I've been a libertarian for years and vote for them in every election. As the quote is: "the governement that governs least, governs best"

Jennifer

Arianna Frances

[vmsfreaky1 0]

Interesting. I did have a look at the website earlier however i wondered what peoples thoughts were.

Thanks

[Malfunction 0]

When it comes to the size and position of the government and its various offices, the Libertarian party believes in the ideas of Thomas Jefferson:

1. That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves

2. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government...

3. The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.

4. The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.

5. If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.

6. I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

7. We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.

That is why I am voting Libertarian this year, even if it may seem like a wasted vote.

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.
- Voltaire

[storm1977 0]

IMO the libertarian view wouldn't be bad except for "You own yourself".

THis opens the door for anyone and everyone to do WHAT EVER THEY WANT. And, IMO this is very bad for society and it inturn creates a group of people who feel that they do not need to take resposability for their actions.

You sex life affects people!
The drugs you do affect people!

Like it or not it is the truth. Those things work to destabilize society.

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

IMO the libertarian view wouldn't be bad except for "You own yourself".

THis opens the door for anyone and everyone to do WHAT EVER THEY WANT.

That's kind of the idea. People ought to be allowed to whatever they want, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Quote

And, IMO this is very bad for society and it inturn creates a group of people who feel that they do not need to take resposability for their actions.

I disagree. Libertarianism is fundamentally centered around taking responsibility for your own actions. You must, individually, take responsibility for yourself, rather than letting the government (or whoever else) take responsibility for you.

The key to this is the idea that you _can_ do whatever you want, up until the point that it hurts someone else (i.e. infringes their rights to do the whatever _they_ want).

Have you read the Declaration of the Rights of Man? It's a pretty good summary.

Quote

You sex life affects people!

Presumably, your sex life only affects consenting adults who have _chosen_ to be effected by it.

Quote

The drugs you do affect people!

I disagree. The actions you take while under the influence may effect other people. If they do, I believe you should be held responsible for those effects. What influences you had chosen to allow on yourself at the time you took the actions is irrelevant--and should not be considered (good or bad) in determining the consequences you face.

Quote

Like it or not it is the truth. Those things work to destabilize society.

I completely disagree. Personal responsibility and individual rights act as stabilizing influences on society. It is when people feel that they as individuals are unimportant that society begins to decay.


edit: how's that C?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mailin 0]

Quote

And, IMO this is very bad for society and it inturn creates a group of people who feel that they do not need to take resposability for their actions.

This is the pretense of the libertarian thought. People are held personally accountable. Think about it this way. (Its just an analogy folks!)

John Juan wants a job - John Juan is from a 'disadvantaged' country. John Juan gets a 'free' job under the current systems welfare act. The system forces Frontier Inc. to employee John Juan in turn for a small tax break. John Juan is a bad employee, he does bad things to the company and gets fired. The government has more money so they continue to dump John Juan at various jobs and he continues to do shoddy work. John Juan did not feel personally responsible becuase he got a free job from the government.

Under a libertarian form of governement, a charitable group would form that would help people from 'disadvantaged' countries find work. (Americans are VERY charitable, the most in the world). They work with John Juan to find something he would like to do and a company that is willing to help him (but not for a tax break as most taxes would not exist under a libertarian form of gov.). John Juan doesn't do a good job, and is let go from the company. John Juan slithers back to charitable group, but they tell him they can't find him another job becuase he was fired from the first. SO now John Juan has to find work on his own - there is no governement program to do it for him - personal responsability. Other charitable groups have formed to help him with other aspects of his life (temporary housing), but no one will be able to find a job for him, he has to do this himself. These charitable groups will depend on donations from now tax free individuals, and can only do what the coffers allow them to do. It would rely on a 'supply meets demand approach'. Citizens (rather than politicians) would sit on the board of directors keeping them in line.

This is one example of how one aspect would work. Personal responsability will make John Juan a better person, a more productive member of society. If he can not conform, he will not be permitted as a member of society and something will happen have to happen to him; he either goes back to 'disadvantaged' country, or gets off his duff and works for a living and conforms to the society; when in Rome, do as the Romans.

There are obvious rules that need to be set in place, but they will occur from state to state rather than at the federal level - meaning that the citizens of the state will make decisions for themselves. What works in Hawaii won't necessarily work in Nebraska, and that should be for the people to decide.

The way the government is set up now, it pretty much abolishes personal responsability. I could walk up to several people on the street and ask them if they knew about a current bill in congress that will tack an additional 15% parking tax in the capital city, and no one would know. Or that there is a 'seperation of powers' bill in the works that will ultimately cost tax payers millions. They don't know, and I don't think its because they don't care - they've been conditioned to not have any involvement in the system becuase its set up that way. If people had a more direct role they would be more direct in their decisions and more active.

A sudden move to a libertarian government would not work now. There would be too many drastic changes. But... if small changes were made, I could see us 'government free' in 20 years. I can only imagine how people will free up their time if they didn't have to wade through all the government red tape.

Arianna Frances

[storm1977 0]

Quote

In Reply To
The drugs you do affect people!

I disagree. The actions you take while under the influence may effect other people. If they do, I believe you should be held responsible for those effects. What influences you had chosen to allow on yourself at the time you took the actions is irrelevant--and should not be considered (good or bad) in determining the consequences you face.

Se this is what people who drugs fail to understand.

It is not just your actions under the influence of drugs that causes problems, it is the fact that further up the line where those drugs came from, there were consequences. People were hurt, robbed and sometimes killed to get those drugs to market, to you.

So don't pretend that drugs don't hurt people...even if you are just sitting on your couch smoke a bone by yourself.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[mailin 0]

Quote

It is not just your actions under the influence of drugs that causes problems, it is the fact that further up the line where those drugs came from, there were consequences. People were hurt, robbed and sometimes killed to get those drugs to market, to you.

Libertairan view is that drugs shouldn't be illegal - thusly eliminating this problem.

This is the only aspect that I have some trouble with. I don't see this working any time soon.

Jennifer

Arianna Frances

[billvon 2,998]

>THis opens the door for anyone and everyone to do WHAT EVER
>THEY WANT.

You got it! The ability to do that makes this the greatest country on earth.

> And, IMO this is very bad for society and it inturn creates a group of
> people who feel that they do not need to take resposability for their
> actions.

You only have to be responsible to the people you affect. Want to masturbate? Want to grow carrots in your back yard? Want to paint black-velvet pictures of Elvis? Raise cats? Play with blocks? Spend all day surfing the net? You are free to do any of those things.

>You sex life affects people!

Only the people you have sex with.

>The drugs you do affect people!

I've used Vicodin for pain. How did that affect you? I drink beer, and most people consider alcohol a drug. How are you put out by that?

Now, if you are arguing that massive overuse of antibiotics has an overall influence on things like MRSA or VRE you have a point there. Which is a public-health reason that antibiotics should be controlled.

>Like it or not it is the truth. Those things work to destabilize society.

Does "destabilize" mean "change?" I agree, then. Society will continue to change. 200 years ago, blacks had no freedom and women could be essentially owned by their husbands. Men wore wigs and pantyhose. Women who practiced odd religions were burned to death. Society has since changed, and will probably change again. That's a good thing.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

It is not just your actions under the influence of drugs that causes problems, it is the fact that further up the line where those drugs came from, there were consequences. People were hurt, robbed and sometimes killed to get those drugs to market, to you.

So don't pretend that drugs don't hurt people...even if you are just sitting on your couch smoke a bone by yourself.

Your underlying premise, which is unstated, is that drugs are illegal.

In a Libertarian system, the acquisition of recreational substances would be no more difficult than the acquisition of beer is now. So there wouldn't be any need to hurt, rob, or kill anyone to get them.

This type of legalized drug system works very well to contain crime (and reduce side effects from poor quality drugs or dangerous distribution systems) in many places in the real world. Amsterdam is perhaps the best known example.

In other words, it is not recreational substances that beget violence. As we learned in the US in the 1930's, it is the prohibition of recreational substances that begets violence, by putting a huge cash cow into the hands of criminals, rather than law abiding citizens.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

This is the only aspect that I have some trouble with. I don't see this working any time soon.

In the 30's many prohibitionists predicted that the repeal of prohibition would lead to the collapse of society, and the beginning of rule by organized crime. It actually worked the other way. While there were some initial shocks to the immediate repeal of prohibition, they were actually incredibly limited. Basically, as soon as the laws creating the problem went away, so did the problem.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mailin 0]

I agree with the premise...

Its the execution that I have issue with.


Jennifer

Arianna Frances

[TomAiello 26]

I understand. I read your previous posts, and I bet you and I agree about 99% more than I agree with the average person.

What I was saying is that the execution at the end of alcohol prohibition was incredibly simple. There are some structural barriers here that didn't exist there (primarily related to how long and widespread this prohibition has been), but I'd bet that simply declaring the end of prohibition would actually be remarkably effective, and raise surprisingly few problems.

What issues do you see with the execution?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Shameless plug:

If anyone is interested in learning more about Libertarian ideas, check out the Institute for Humane Studies. They offer free seminars exploring Libertarian ideas to students (undergrad and grad), as well as scholarships and prizes for Libertarians.

You may also meet your soul mate at one of their seminars.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mailin 0]

Where as alcohol was a 'homegrown' business in the 30s (most of it made here, purchased here, consumed here), its not the case with drug trafficing. Its an international business. Libertarian governement has open borders and open trade - for the initial period we would be inundated with drugs causing a large drop in price, causing more experimenting and casualty.

It can be rectified in time, but is that initial period worth it? Their drug platform is the only part I think needs more regulation then they say, at least initially. Our social structure is not set up for it.

Jennifer

Arianna Frances

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What issues do you see with the execution?

What do you do with the DEA and the rest of the drug war infrastructure?
Most of the barriers towards legalization come from them, and certainly
they'll continue to act in their own self interest. I suppose we could just redirect their efforts to our new external threat.

At the very least let's decriminalize pot to the standard of tobacco. CA is running out of smokers to tax; it needs a new revenue source.

[wmw999 2,452]

Quote

Where as alcohol was a 'homegrown' business in the 30s

Actually, rum-running (and beer-running, etc) was a decent-sized industry, and many mobsters and others (including, reportedly, Joseph Kennedy) got their start by importing and/or controlling the flow of alcohol.

Homemade hooch just wasn't produced in quantities sufficient for the big cities.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)