Someone correct me if i'm wrong and PLEASE don't bite my head off because this is purely speculation....
It seems to me that the Libertarian Party is just another form of Anarchy...i've been trying to research this party more and i am just a little confused on a few things.
I understand that they want minimal government involvement but what is it they would prefer instead? I see their opinions on the problems but no solutions...I really want to understand.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong and PLEASE don't bite my head off because this is purely speculation....
It seems to me that the Libertarian Party is just another form of Anarchy...i've been trying to research this party more and i am just a little confused on a few things.
I understand that they want minimal government involvement but what is it they would prefer instead? I see their opinions on the problems but no solutions...I really want to understand.

Basically they want people to be able to do what they want. As long as what they do doesn't harm someone else it should be okay. That doesn't mean they believe in violating the law; they would prefer the law be changed. As the biggest example I can think of: They believe smoking pot should be legal. The government should not be allowed to tell them they can't. But most Libertarians wouldn't violate the law just because they think it should be legal.

The Libertarian Party promotes responsible anarchy. The problem I have with them is they don't take stupidity into consideration, and god knows we have a lot of stupid people in this country. To be Libertarian, our citizenry would have to have guts enough to let stupids sink or swim, and that's not going to happen.

Basically they want people to be able to do what they want. As long as what they do doesn't harm someone else it should be okay. That doesn't mean they believe in violating the law; they would prefer the law be changed. As the biggest example I can think of: They believe smoking pot should be legal. The government should not be allowed to tell them they can't. But most Libertarians wouldn't violate the law just because they think it should be legal.

The Libertarian Party promotes responsible anarchy. The problem I have with them is they don't take stupidity into consideration, and god knows we have a lot of stupid people in this country. To be Libertarian, our citizenry would have to have guts enough to let stupids sink or swim, and that's not going to happen.

That's what i deduced from what i've read. I have to agree with vrai though that this idea (much like communism, not that i'm in any way saying that they are similar) ignores the fact that there are people who will surely take advantage of a society with less government involvement. Also, their platform seems incomplete and vague. I can respect the idea though.

And i meant that it was much like communism in that it looks good on paper but doesn't seem like it would play out very well in real life.

The Libertarian Party promotes responsible anarchy. The problem I have with them is they don't take stupidity into consideration, and god knows we have a lot of stupid people in this country. To be Libertarian, our citizenry would have to have guts enough to let stupids sink or swim, and that's not going to happen.

But wouldn't we have a lot less stupid people if they actually suffered the consequence of their action?
No seat belt laws, no helmet laws, no warning stickers on a lawn mover saying don't garb the blade when it running, etc

But wouldn't we have a lot less stupid people if they actually suffered the consequence of their action?
No seat belt laws, no helmet laws, no warning stickers on a lawn mover saying don't garb the blade when it running, etc

When it is not running what do you dress yours in? :lol:

But wouldn't we have a lot less stupid people if they actually suffered the consequence of their action?
No seat belt laws, no helmet laws, no warning stickers on a lawn mover saying don't garb the blade when it running, etc



sliding down banisters from the 4th floor ... with no wall to save them :whistle:

Tire pressure monitors are a perfect example of government intrusion. They add about $500 to the price of a car and they only protect idiots.

... and if you change your wheels, you have to buy adapters or new sending units to keep the idiot light on your dash turned off

Tire pressure monitors are a perfect example of government intrusion. They add about $500 to the price of a car and they only protect idiots.

... and if you change your wheels, you have to buy adapters or new sending units to keep the idiot light on your dash turned off


:twitch:



hmm had not bought a new car (ever) I am guessing your MX-5 has this option

the fact that there are people who will surely take advantage of a society with less government involvement.

How so? In the Libertarian viewpoint, it is a perfectly valid government function to protect (or, more realistically, attempt to protect) the citizenry from fraud (yes, including protecting the stupid, Vrai), theft, blackmail, assault, murder, etc. Now if you mean "take advantage of a society" as in bilk the taxpayers by subsisting on some government program(s) such as welfare, farm subsidies, Medicare/caid, SS, or other inherently redistributionist method, these are not legitimate government functions and would be done away with (one can only dream!). Individual citizens could still voluntarily support these things in some way they develop on their own if they wish (much like you might give to the Red Cross), but the Libertarian government wouldn't be forcing (i.e., taxing) you to contribute.

(yes, including protecting the stupid, Vrai),

I am not in favor of protecting the stupid. I want to see them go extinct and cleanse the gene pool. If there were a Scorched Earth Party, I'm totally there.

If people were held responsible for their stupid decisions, the Libertarian Party would be where it's at. But our namby pamby whiner voting populace will not allow that, so Democrat or Republican it is.

Personal responsibility is so, like, 1955.

How so? In the Libertarian viewpoint, it is a perfectly valid government function to protect (or, more realistically, attempt to protect) the citizenry from fraud (yes, including protecting the stupid, Vrai), theft, blackmail, assault, murder, etc. Now if you mean "take advantage of a society" as in bilk the taxpayers by subsisting on some government program(s) such as welfare, farm subsidies, Medicare/caid, SS, or other inherently redistributionist method, these are not legitimate government functions and would be done away with (one can only dream!). Individual citizens could still voluntarily support these things in some way they develop on their own if they wish (much like you might give to the Red Cross), but the Libertarian government wouldn't be forcing (i.e., taxing) you to contribute.


I just don't see anyone taking it upon themselves to support eachother. I agree that there are plenty of people who would but for the most part, i think alot of the people that Libertarianism looks attractive to are only interested in less involvement by the government so that they can get away with things. Like i said, i respect it, i just don't see it working.

Also, i see tons of articles on Libertarians and what they believe in and none of them go very deep. What you just said made more sense than anything i've read about them. It's starting to look like Libertarianism is the platform for a very personalized viewpoint that is expounded on by alot of people with custom views...not one entire entity. I don't know though.

I am not in favor of protecting the stupid. I want to see them go extinct and cleanse the gene pool. If there were a Scorched Earth Party, I'm totally there.

If people were held responsible for their stupid decisions, the Libertarian Party would be where it's at. But our namby pamby whiner voting populace will not allow that, so Democrat or Republican it is.

Personal responsibility is so, like, 1955.

They'd only be protected from the same things the not-stupid would be protected from, not from the results of their acting stupidly.

I just don't see anyone taking it upon themselves to support eachother.

They may not, and that's their choice, or they may, and that's also their choice. In either situation no one is forced one way or the other.



What you just said made more sense than anything i've read about them.

Thanks!:buddies: