Do you consider yourself a libertarian?

[TheLibertonian]

But without the mechanisms in place that allow a corporation to exercise that coercion, they have no choice. Reduce the regulation and level the playing field for everyone. Simply saying "we'll reduce regulation for you guys, but you real big guys over here need more regulation" is counter to everything that is American, IMO.

So you would rather see monopolies that use political and economic coercion to stomp out all competition? Because that's what already happened.

The gilded age already happened Chris, and I think you're being blind to the realities of it. It wasn't maximal freedom for the maximal amount of people, it was monopolies propped up by unethical acts and sometimes illegal acts, that robbed a vast majority of people of their livelihood and individual freedoms in favor of a very few. Shall we bring back sharecropping as well, the modern serf?

We were this close to become an oligarchy. In fact I would argue we were. it was only by government intervention that the system was broken up and capitalism began to flourish again.

 

[This_person]

I feel like people who don't really understand libertarianism conflate it with anarchism. It's not the same, as libertarians see the need for government, albeit a small(er) need, but a need none the less. Anarchists don't see any need for authority.

I think that most libertarians see themselves as fiscally conservative, socially liberal. I'm not suggesting that is what libertarianism is, I'm saying I think that's what a lot of people think.

So, take that to fluoride in your drinking water; a libertarian says "you can't drug me without my express consent", a liberal says, "government knows best, put all the stuff in there you want 'cuz you know what's good for me better than I do", and a conservative says, "what's it cost vs. what's it gonna save?" In this case, the libertarian is right, but is made to look foolish by a media (and many others who say, "those dumb libertarians think that fluoride is a bad thing when it's just meant to save your teeth!" So, people look at libertarians and think they're nuts because they're told to think they're nuts.

In answer to some of the opening questions, I do not consider myself a libertarian, I consider myself a fiscally conservative originalist (in terms of the constitution). I am for limited government and stopping people from hurting one another at the lowest cost possible, providing necessary services (key word - necessary) and regulation while not using ideology but rather secular science to guide decisions. I have, in the past, been for those things that aid society (having marriage laws at all, etc.), but I am moving away from that.

 

[SamSpade]

The drug debate has been beat to death on this forum so there's no need to re-hash that other than to say that if we really are a truly "free" country, that involves the choice to put into our bodies what we wish. Does that mean complete free reign? No. .

*shrug* My concern is two-fold. One is, almost to the last, whenever I meet someone who says they support legalization, they pretty much just mean weed. They won't engage in anything else, or will hand-wave and categorically support everything else, but they don't go too far --- into the weeds. Sorry. And I can't support it for a few reasons. One is, I don't think people are smart enough to self-medicate - I don't think they should ignore advice or be able to in any fashion bypass every pharmacist and doctor because they want this or that drug. Not everything mixes well in your bloodstream. It's not freedom - it's ignorance. I am happy to leave that to people who know the details. The other is, availability of so-called recreational drugs may mean, you and me and Dupree may be able to get it, but it also means someone will find it MUCH easier to stick it into my ten year old. I've seen five year olds drunk on liquor - and THAT was illegal. I had a niece addicted to heroin at 12 because her mom did it. We waited in the emergency room and she --- survived. Why would anyone want that situation to be easy to repeat?

But the other is similar to the argument I have to libertarian open border concepts - we have a society that seriously WILL NOT hold people accountable for their behavior. I wrote on here many years ago, that if they legalized weed hoping it would clear the dockets of minor infractions where people smoked in public, all it means is the very same nitwits will STILL show up in court because they did something irresponsible while high. And they will STILL gets slaps on the wrist UNTIL they do something irreparable. You won't make the courts and jails clear - you'll just move the situation further to disaster. An idiot who gets high right in front of a cop will think nothing of driving while stoned stupid. And I can't believe people claim that it won't make them dangerous. They're just as dangerous as an elderly citizen who can barely see, hear or react.

"Open borders" is a term that's a bit misleading, IMO. While there are some folks that believe that we should revert back to the early 1900s when anyone who got here became a citizen (arguably, it worked for some time), there are folks (like me) that believe we should have a border and an organized way to enter the country,

Me too. Nevertheless, I hear just countless arguments claiming that unfettered, free, open and clear entry to this country ALWAYS works to our advantage, and I - and a few libertarians - would argue that THAT was only true before we had massive entitlements, welfare and support systems for every man, woman and child, legal or not. I do believe in immigration, but we should know what we're getting, and stop it when it's illegal. I also think we need to find ways to improve our existing population so we DON'T *HAVE* to go abroad for our doctors and engineers and mathematicians and physicists. And we *CERTAINLY* should not make it so much cheaper to import brains than to cultivate them at home.

 

[BigBlue]

1.No

2. I believe a gay married couple should be allowed to protect their marijuana plants with legal guns.

Fixed:, this I agree with.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

*Cracks fingers*

So you would rather see monopolies that use political and economic coercion to stomp out all competition? Because that's what already happened.

The gilded age already happened Chris, and I think you're being blind to the realities of it. It wasn't maximal freedom for the maximal amount of people, it was monopolies propped up by unethical acts and sometimes illegal acts, that robbed a vast majority of people of their livelihood and individual freedoms in favor of a very few. Shall we bring back sharecropping as well, the modern serf?

We were this close to become an oligarchy. In fact I would argue we were. it was only by government intervention that the system was broken up and capitalism began to flourish again.

Of course I wouldn't like to see that. I just happen to believe the biggest and best way you can support (or not support) a business is with your wallet.

Maybe I simply have little faith in our current government. But giving them the power to force a business to make certain decisions opens the door for governmental coercion of the business and potential corruption of government by the business. The very same thing you want gone.

Or do you just want coercion out of the lives of people directly (while essentially allowing the government, and by association, the people, to be coerced using the same regulations you advocate for)?

I think that most libertarians see themselves as fiscally conservative, socially liberal. I'm not suggesting that is what libertarianism is, I'm saying I think that's what a lot of people think.

So, take that to fluoride in your drinking water; a libertarian says "you can't drug me without my express consent", a liberal says, "government knows best, put all the stuff in there you want 'cuz you know what's good for me better than I do", and a conservative says, "what's it cost vs. what's it gonna save?" In this case, the libertarian is right, but is made to look foolish by a media (and many others who say, "those dumb libertarians think that fluoride is a bad thing when it's just meant to save your teeth!" So, people look at libertarians and think they're nuts because they're told to think they're nuts.

In answer to some of the opening questions, I do not consider myself a libertarian, I consider myself a fiscally conservative originalist (in terms of the constitution). I am for limited government and stopping people from hurting one another at the lowest cost possible, providing necessary services (key word - necessary) and regulation while not using ideology but rather secular science to guide decisions. I have, in the past, been for those things that aid society (having marriage laws at all, etc.), but I am moving away from that.

I think your first line is pretty much spot on. Much like the far right wing of the GOP and far left wing of the Democrats, there are some libertarians that fall in the outer political sphere that may want to see things go a bit further, but I'd agree that's the basic premise.

We've come so far down this rabbit hole that even suggesting we do something drastic (though much needed) will get you lambasted (see: Ron and Rand Paul in the Republican party)

*shrug* My concern is two-fold. One is, almost to the last, whenever I meet someone who says they support legalization, they pretty much just mean weed. They won't engage in anything else, or will hand-wave and categorically support everything else, but they don't go too far --- into the weeds. Sorry. And I can't support it for a few reasons. One is, I don't think people are smart enough to self-medicate - I don't think they should ignore advice or be able to in any fashion bypass every pharmacist and doctor because they want this or that drug. Not everything mixes well in your bloodstream. It's not freedom - it's ignorance. I am happy to leave that to people who know the details. The other is, availability of so-called recreational drugs may mean, you and me and Dupree may be able to get it, but it also means someone will find it MUCH easier to stick it into my ten year old. I've seen five year olds drunk on liquor - and THAT was illegal. I had a niece addicted to heroin at 12 because her mom did it. We waited in the emergency room and she --- survived. Why would anyone want that situation to be easy to repeat?

I also don't think people are generally smart, but is that because of an ever-increasing coddling of our society with less focus on individual responsibility? As I said, many different things intermingle when discussing social laws. People today find the Kardashians amazing. Why? I have no clue, but they do. They freak out if Facebook doesn't work, but no one bats an eye when the government passes laws that affect everyone.

It very well may be ignorant, but I'd argue it's just as ignorant as smoking cigarettes and drinking until your liver shuts down. We tolerate that though.

I think many arguments against (and for, in some cases) legalization, or decriminalization, involve hypothetical situations. Obviously we don't want kids getting ahold of drugs or alcohol, but on the other hand, we're telling them don't drink or do drugs, yet we medicate children to no end if they act up in school. One could argue that perceived safety of prescription drugs is why so many people use, and die from prescription drug abuse.

So why is it somewhat okay to live with the byproducts of the war on drugs just so kids can't get drugs or alcohol easily (it's already pretty easy) while at the same time, saying it's okay to give a 13 year old 11 different medications including Xanax?

Do you think that doing away with a black market gives people less incentive to get into that business as a money making opportunity?

While I'm sorry you had to go through those experiences with your family members (been there, done that) how has keeping drugs illegal helped stop those experiences for other people?

But the other is similar to the argument I have to libertarian open border concepts - we have a society that seriously WILL NOT hold people accountable for their behavior. I wrote on here many years ago, that if they legalized weed hoping it would clear the dockets of minor infractions where people smoked in public, all it means is the very same nitwits will STILL show up in court because they did something irresponsible while high. And they will STILL gets slaps on the wrist UNTIL they do something irreparable. You won't make the courts and jails clear - you'll just move the situation further to disaster. An idiot who gets high right in front of a cop will think nothing of driving while stoned stupid. And I can't believe people claim that it won't make them dangerous. They're just as dangerous as an elderly citizen who can barely see, hear or react.

Unfortunately, you are correct. The more we drift away from behavioral accountability, the less libertarianism can be easily implemented (or accepted). If the whole premise of libertarianism is responsibility and accountability surrounded by the complete opposite of that premise, it's a bit harder to sell.

I think driving under the influence is dumb no matter the substance. That being said, recently the NHTSA did a study on driving stoned.

They found:

...drivers who use marijuana are at a significantly lower risk for a crash than drivers who use alcohol. And after adjusting for age, gender, race and alcohol use, drivers who tested positive for marijuana were no more likely to crash than who had not used any drugs or alcohol prior to driving.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812117-Drug_and_Alcohol_Crash_Risk.pdf


Me too. Nevertheless, I hear just countless arguments claiming that unfettered, free, open and clear entry to this country ALWAYS works to our advantage, and I - and a few libertarians - would argue that THAT was only true before we had massive entitlements, welfare and support systems for every man, woman and child, legal or not. I do believe in immigration, but we should know what we're getting, and stop it when it's illegal. I also think we need to find ways to improve our existing population so we DON'T *HAVE* to go abroad for our doctors and engineers and mathematicians and physicists. And we *CERTAINLY* should not make it so much cheaper to import brains than to cultivate them at home.

Absolutely. Milton Friedman said essentially the same thing. We can never have open borders because doing so would do away with our entitlement society (and we're not just talking food stamps and welfare. We're talking social security and pensions also).

I certainly agree with the last part, which brings up another intermingled aspect. Education in this country.

unfortunately, I just think we're so far gone in terms of real accountability and personal responsibility that true libertarian government will never happen. Sure, tons and tons of people (regardless of what their political affiliation is) may align with libertarian ideas and the basic "live and let live" motto, but after so many years of this path, it'll take something pretty drastic for Americans to change enough to elect a different party.

 

[SamSpade]

I think many arguments against (and for, in some cases) legalization, or decriminalization, involve hypothetical situations. Obviously we don't want kids getting ahold of drugs or alcohol, but on the other hand, we're telling them don't drink or do drugs, yet we medicate children to no end if they act up in school. One could argue that perceived safety of prescription drugs is why so many people use, and die from prescription drug abuse.

So why is it somewhat okay to live with the byproducts of the war on drugs just so kids can't get drugs or alcohol easily (it's already pretty easy) while at the same time, saying it's okay to give a 13 year old 11 different medications including Xanax?

Do you think that doing away with a black market gives people less incentive to get into that business as a money making opportunity?

While I'm sorry you had to go through those experiences with your family members (been there, done that) how has keeping drugs illegal helped stop those experiences for other people?

Couple points:

People who "medicate their children" do so under the supervision of their pediatrician and via pharmacists. My son has a disorder he was born with - he completely depends on the medication to be able to focus on what he is doing. Try to imagine trying to write your thesis while sitting in the middle of a busy intersection, complete with honking horns and angry motorists. When I buy his medication, I have to show ID, because it's not something they want people to "just give to their kids". It does not STUPEFY him. It calms him. The way he would put it is, it turns the traffic off.

So I'm dismissive of all of your remarks on his medication. He was born without part of his brain. I would no more deprive him of his meds than I would a diabetic child whose pancreas hasn't worked right since birth. Since those days, I've met many, many parents who have dealt with medical problems creating these disabilities. Contrary to what you suggest - it's not lazy parents stupefying otherwise bratty children. I have one of those too, and she is learning from proper parenting.

But -

If these problems exist when they are illegal - my point isn't that illegality has stopped them - but that making them LEGAL will open the floodgates and make it nigh impossible to stop. I don't follow the reasoning that suggest LEGALIZING them would make these situations go away.

And out of order, but your remaining point -
Drug cartels and the men involved in them are the most vicious, evil, barbaric people to walk this earth. They combine the worst sadism and viciousness with the allure of vast wealth and power that even emperors and despots rarely enjoy (largely because historically, if you're savagely brutal to an entire populace for years, sooner or later, they're going to revolt). We have parts of this world where even law enforcement is afraid to go. To call them devils or demons might be putting it mildly.

So am I to believe that if we legalize drugs, they will throw their hands in the air, and declare "oh well - back to the drawing board" and end their reigns of terror, because the profit incentive has ended? Are people really naive enough to think that gang wars will stop, because they can't profit from selling illegal drugs? The only thing making them barbaric animals is the drug profit incentive? Geez, what did these guys do before there were drugs?

It won't change anything. You're not going to make bad guys go away with a stroke of legislation, but you are sure to win votes that way.

 

[Larry Gude]

Just a philosophical comment; IN MY VIEW, anyone claiming the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, agreeing with them as the good and proper foundation of being an American is, by definition, a libertarian. Endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the mission statement so to speak, and then the rule book, the words that protect us from one another by limiting the power of what our collective government may and may not do, all of that.

More than anything else, what has become understandable to me the last 15 years or so, rather painfully so, is that many people who would otherwise claim to be Americans, for freedom, for liberty based on those two documents are very conditional about it.

So, it's a good set of questions, Tilted. Very interesting.

 

[Larry Gude]

Technically anarchy is under the libertarian sphere but it's like...far right extremist libertarian.

Is it? In my view, libertarian-ism, recognition of free will, governance by free will, recognizes, inherently, rules and limits. It can not be otherwise. It can not be said that exercising ones own free will to the detriments of anothers, material detriment, is libertarian in any sense and on the contrary is totalitarianism defined.

 

[SamSpade]

Is it? In my view, libertarian-ism, recognition of free will, governance by free will, recognizes, inherently, rules and limits. It can not be otherwise. It can not be said that exercising ones own free will to the detriments of anothers, material detriment, is libertarian in any sense and on the contrary is totalitarianism defined.

I guess I recognize the old saw from Oliver Wendell Holmes - your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. You're not going to have the right to wail on your guitar to ear-splitting levels in the wee hours of the morning - not unless you live tens of miles from anyone with two working ears.

 

[Larry Gude]

I guess I recognize the old saw from Oliver Wendell Holmes - your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. You're not going to have the right to wail on your guitar to ear-splitting levels in the wee hours of the morning - not unless you live tens of miles from anyone with two working ears.

It appears we're on the same page.

 

[migtig]

[(1) Do you consider yourself a libertarian?
Yes, I'm registered to vote Libertarian and am card carrying member of the Libertarian Party for both the national party and state.


(2) Whether you do or not, how would you articulate - in a sentence or two - what it means to be libertarian?
Freedom to be me without excessive government regulation.

(3) What would you call that which you consider most directly opposed to libertarianism? (e.g. authoritarianism, liberalism, conservatism, facism, statism)
Communism.

(4) Comparing yourself to Americans in general: Where on a scale form 1 to 10 would you place yourself, with 10 being the most libertarian and 1 being the least libertarian (i.e. with 1 being the most whatever you identified in (3))?
I'm an 8. Most Americans are probably an 8 and don't even realize it. See attached.

(5) Relating to your own libertarian views, what things do you think the government shouldn't be doing that many others think it should be doing? (e.g. regulating firearms, redistributing wealth, prohibiting prostitution, requiring health care coverage, using tax rules to encourage or discourage certain behaviors, making drugs illegal, restricting the use of private property, prohibiting private actor discrimination, engaging in certain forms of surveillance, making decisions about children's education, requiring the withholding of income tax, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid)
Federal Government is responsible for the defense and protection of a nation. State governments are responsible for education. That's about it. We should be following the constitution.

(6) Relating to your own libertarian views, what things do you think the government should be doing that many others think it shouldn't be doing?
I actually don't think the government should be doing as much as they are currently. I can't think of a thing I want government to do in addition. That's crazy talk.

(7) Lastly, relating to your own libertarian views, what determines whether something is an answer to (5) rather than an answer to (6)? Does it just depend on how you happen to feel about it and you don't really consider the matter much beyond that? Is it based on some articulable principle? Is it based on objective criteria? (If so, do you think you apply that principle or criteria consistently?) Is it based on other considerations that you can identify?
I am forced by the government to follow it's rules. Doesn't mean I agree with those rules. I think looking worldwide, where markets are free, people are free. I also believe in the constitution, not all the laws and regulations. Laws that are meant for good have unintended consequences.

Every Libertarian believes that as an adult you should be able to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't cause harm to another being. Why should the government be regulating everything and be in everybody's business?

 

[Merlin99]

I wish I'd said that.

I've often thought your idea of government is that it should be a little on the dictatorial side

 

[Larry Gude]

see above

2) Whether you do or not, how would you articulate - in a sentence or two - what it means to be libertarian? Pollyanna...possessing a child like view of the world and people.

(3) What would you call that which you consider most directly opposed to libertarianism? (e.g. authoritarianism, liberalism, conservatism, facism, statism) Adults


Not sure if you merely prefer totalitarianism, don't understand the basics of libertarian-ism or mean to give kids a lot more credit than they deserve because that would be pretty impressive if kids could view the world, a rather complex place, via a prism of free will. Given the tenets of free will, pondering it, it's strengths and weaknesses, I'm tending towards B....although kids do tend towards recoiling from totalitarianism so, maybe you're giving them the proper credit due?

 

[Larry Gude]

I've often thought your idea of government is that it should be a little on the dictatorial side

A little?

 

[vraiblonde]

I've often thought your idea of government is that it should be a little on the dictatorial side

Only if I get to be the dictator.

 

[TheLibertonian]

Is it? In my view, libertarian-ism, recognition of free will, governance by free will, recognizes, inherently, rules and limits. It can not be otherwise. It can not be said that exercising ones own free will to the detriments of anothers, material detriment, is libertarian in any sense and on the contrary is totalitarianism defined.

As far as the political sciences go, yes. Libertarianism and anarchy are on the same side with anarchy representing a far-rightist libertarianism. Libertarianism is couched in individualism, of which the "ultimate" form is anarchism.

 

[TheLibertonian]

*Cracks fingers*



Of course I wouldn't like to see that. I just happen to believe the biggest and best way you can support (or not support) a business is with your wallet.

Maybe I simply have little faith in our current government. But giving them the power to force a business to make certain decisions opens the door for governmental coercion of the business and potential corruption of government by the business. The very same thing you want gone.

Or do you just want coercion out of the lives of people directly (while essentially allowing the government, and by association, the people, to be coerced using the same regulations you advocate for)?



I think your first line is pretty much spot on. Much like the far right wing of the GOP and far left wing of the Democrats, there are some libertarians that fall in the outer political sphere that may want to see things go a bit further, but I'd agree that's the basic premise.

We've come so far down this rabbit hole that even suggesting we do something drastic (though much needed) will get you lambasted (see: Ron and Rand Paul in the Republican party)

I wouldn't argue for a bit that the current government is capable of doing it well. But we must have regulation or we'll get a repeat of the gilded age, the dustbowl, and floods, and the great depression.

It's well and good to say individualism to the max but what if your individualism destroys an entire countries economy?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I wouldn't argue for a bit that the current government is capable of doing it well. But we must have regulation or we'll get a repeat of the gilded age, the dustbowl, and floods, and the great depression.

It's well and good to say individualism to the max but what if your individualism destroys an entire countries economy?

Because I don't think it will destroy the economy.

I'm not saying not to have regulation, I'm saying not so much of it.

 

[TheLibertonian]

Because I don't think it will destroy the economy.

I'm not saying not to have regulation, I'm saying not so much of it.

The financial crisis's of the 1800's and then the big one, the great depression, disagree.

We would've had a depression in the 1800's if not for the intervention of some very smart, very rich men who were willing to sacrifice in order to make sure the country didn't blow up.

And I agree that certain things could be deregulated. Other things not so much.

Frankly at this point I think we need to bring in a trust buster.

 

[SamSpade]

Because I don't think it will destroy the economy.

I'm not saying not to have regulation, I'm saying not so much of it.

Me neither. I think there are some problems and situations that are not going to come back. There's too much pushback.