Be Libertarian With Me

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X3QRSIXgns&feature=plcp

[greenego]

Can't disagree with him. Both parities have screwed up the country. However no way Mr. Johnson can win. If he gets a little traction, would probably take more votes from Romney than Obama. It's the old saying, lesser of two evils.

[RobertNashville]

The trouble with Libertarians are some of the people they hang with.

As for Mr Johnson, he has less of a chance to be President than Ron Paul did.

Edited June 15, 2012 by RobertNashville

[kieefer]

*What I've noticed from most libertarians is that they act more like disgruntled liberals. True Libertarians respect others and reframe from name calling and support other conservative ideas as well as their own. They know there is one enemy and those are democrats/liberals.

*I'm not directly referring to anyone on this forum but from other sites that I've visted and comments that I've read.

I heard a speech from Rand Paul the other day and he appears to me to be the ideal Libertarian, level headed and can see the big picture. From what I've seen from Gary Johnson he seems alright but like RP, his chances of wining is slim and none. This video is good but I disagree, it's going to take a lot more than one election for the libertarian message to soak in, their numbers are growing but the money and votes are still in the same-ole-parties, R&D.

This current election is too important to screw-up and not vote for the nominee. Lets try filling the House and Senate with Gary and Ron clones and see where that will get us.

BTW ArmyVet37214, hadn't heard much about RP since he lost the last 6 primaries, including his own state and district? Surely you didn't jump ship and climb on board with 3rd party Gary?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Good commercial.

I agree with you, Kieffer, about Rand. He fits the mold quite well and is building a good track record in the Senate.

He's a good role model if only more like him will come out of the woodwork.

Edited June 16, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest Lester Weevils]

*What I've noticed from most libertarians is that they act more like disgruntled liberals. True Libertarians respect others and reframe from name calling and support other conservative ideas as well as their own. They know there is one enemy and those are democrats/liberals.

*I'm not directly referring to anyone on this forum but from other sites that I've visted and comments that I've read.

I heard a speech from Rand Paul the other day and he appears to me to be the ideal Libertarian, level headed and can see the big picture. From what I've seen from Gary Johnson he seems alright but like RP, his chances of wining is slim and none. This video is good but I disagree, it's going to take a lot more than one election for the libertarian message to soak in, their numbers are growing but the money and votes are still in the same-ole-parties, R&D.

This current election is too important to screw-up and not vote for the nominee. Lets try filling the House and Senate with Gary and Ron clones and see where that will get us.

BTW ArmyVet37214, hadn't heard much about RP since he lost the last 6 primaries, including his own state and district? Surely you didn't jump ship and climb on board with 3rd party Gary?

Hi Kiefer. Maybe I'm not getting what you mean.

Half of libertarianism is traditional old fashioned early american Jeffersonian liberalism and so about half of it ought to sound "liberal" though those attitudes have been gradually fading from the democrat party and modern liberals for decades. Though occasional modern liberals will still give it lip service.

Such early conservative sentiments as "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop." Those are conservative ideas hundreds of years old in the good ole USA.

If some self-described "true conservative" wants us to keep signing treaties, strutting off to war and meddling in other's affairs, then that IS NOT a traditional USA conservative position. Challenging such ideas is "being conservative", not "sounding like a liberal".

Oft-quoted but containing more than a grain of truth--

http://www.johnreilly.info/trahop.htm The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and more international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right, and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in terms of procedure, priority and method

[enfield]

No thanks, thought a lot about it over the years, don't want to be a Libertarian.

From what I see, the end game of the Libertarian Party is anarchy. I prefer to live in a society, however imperfect.

[BigK]

I prefer there to be NO political parties. I'd make displaying party affiliations tantamount to gang activity.

[RobertNashville]

"Party" is not the issue; political parties are simply a structure...a mechanism that allows the political process (choosing candidates, elections, and the 10,000 other things that need to happen for people to obtain office and for the government to run once they are there. Without some kind of structure- a party to identify with, legislatures would probably get ZERO done ever (all jokes aside about that being a good thing; we do need our legislatures to do some legislating).When it comes to the political philosophy; I think Ronald Reagan may have said it best with regards to "conservationism" and "libertarianism"...

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path. - Ronald Reagan (1975)

From my personal perspective, I do believe there are many who identify themselves as libitarian who really do think we should have no or virtually no government involvement in anything - they do seem to embrace anarchy (whether they do so knowingly or or not I'm not certain and I find that approach to be both disturbing and dangerous. That's why, when I describe my political philosophy to others, I generally describe myself as conservative with libertarian leanings.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hi Kiefer. Maybe I'm not getting what you mean.

Half of libertarianism is traditional old fashioned early american Jeffersonian liberalism and so about half of it ought to sound "liberal" though those attitudes have been gradually fading from the democrat party and modern liberals for decades. Though occasional modern liberals will still give it lip service.

Such early conservative sentiments as "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop." Those are conservative ideas hundreds of years old in the good ole USA.

If some self-described "true conservative" wants us to keep signing treaties, strutting off to war and meddling in other's affairs, then that IS NOT a traditional USA conservative position. Challenging such ideas is "being conservative", not "sounding like a liberal".

Oft-quoted but containing more than a grain of truth--

Hey Lester,

Liberalism is what you described it as, and conservatism is, also. Times put new meanings and labels on all of the

political leanings. There are those known now as "neocons" and the liberal movement has morphed into communism,

just as libertarians appear to lean toward anarchy. Robert describes my leanings to a "t" and I imagine also yours, but

it is semantics that throw all of us a curve ball since the media continually distort all of the above meanings and fine

points of any political leaning.

I would, so much, enjoy seeing true Jeffersonian type libertarians in the hot seat, and the Congress crowded with them,

also. If only the media would be ignored.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thanks Robert and 6.8

Dunno much about it. As you say it is a matter of degree and semantics.

The most common meaning of anarchy may be "a state of lawlessness". Which has happened often enough even in the presence of a heavy-handed government trying its best to put a lid on it, incapable of bringing order regardless of "giving it a good try".

As a kid reading Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls". IIRC the novel's narrator describes anarchists as annoying allies to fight alongside, because the anarchists refuse to use conventional latrine practices. The anarchists would dump wherever they pleased on the battlefield and you were always stepping in their crap.

Until recently didn't realize that there are so many distinct and mutually-exclusive "flavors" of anarchic philosophies. The wikipedia article on anarchism lists many mutually-exclusive kinds. Maybe an "organization of anarchists" might be an oxymoron but most "anarchist philosopies" do not advocate disorder. They advocate no government. Voluntary cooperation supples order and therefore government is unnecessary (according to some theories). Seems pie-in-the-sky impractical "in a pure form" but interesting to consider. I mean, if that would work it would be pretty neat for everybody to get along fine with absolutely no gov.

Recently watched a truly horrible corny old movie featuring a "properly operating hippie community". One dude likes to raise food and he gives it away to everybody else. One dude likes to bake bread so he bakes the farmers wheat and gives the bread away to everybody. No person in the community takes any more than he needs. One lady loves to teach so she teaches all the kids fer free. All the kids love to learn and they go to school every day and never misbehave. No government. No deprivation or exploitation. Everything works great, entirely voluntary. When pigs fly and they serve ice water in hell. But ya gotta admit it would be nice assuming it would work.

The above scenario is in the ballpark of communistic anarchism. To each according to his needs, from each according to his means, entirely voluntary. No secret police, conscripted labor or gulags. I can state without a shadow of doubt that Libertarians ARE NOT that kind of anarchist.

On the other hand such as hedonists, survivalists, social darwinists, and winner-take-all business tycoons are various flavors of individualist anarchist. Libertarians subscribe to individualist anarchism, to one degree or the other. They ain't all the same. I mean, it would be an odd libertarian who hates individual liberty.

====

Perhaps anything more-free than what one is accustomed-to, might appear anarchic? Ferinstance if perfessors are the only ones qualified to write scientific papers, then it would be pure anarchy to allow any random idiot to publish a scientific paper. A menial patent office clerk publishes a crackpot theory of relativity? And he even has the gall to call it "special"? Pure anarchy!

If a family must receive government permission to move from Kolomna to Tula then it might seem pure anarchy to allow any family to move wherever desired. How could that ever be practical? There would be endemic local shortages and surplusses, which would be inefficient and inevitably cause human misery and social destabilization.

Similarly, it would be pure anarchy to allow a fella to make a living programming computers at his residence. That house is zoned residential, not commercial. At the very least he's gotta have an office zoned commercial. That is, if the fella has the proper degree and certifications. A self-taught programmer? Pure anarchy certain to destabilize society. Next thing you know non-plumbers will replace their own faucet washers and people with headaches might self-prescribe aspirin. People might even eat unhealthy food or foolishly take non-prescription vitamin pills. If anarchy were to get completely out of hand then ordinary citizens might even be allowed to own UNLICENSED FIREARMS.

It could get crazy. People might keep cash at home rather than in the bank. Gays might get married. People might get the idea they can pray to whatever god they desire. Some preverts might decide that they have a right to make their own booze in their own basement. There's no tellin how bad it could get.

====

All seriousness aside, a "truly free market" in theory leverages anarchy to optimize resources better than central planning. Many folks are afeared of a truly free market. Fear of anarchy. Let people buy, sell and enter into contracts without any government meddling? Surely the end of the world. If such were allowed then some people would get rich and others would get poor. Some excellent goods might be cheap and other shoddy goods might be expensive. How could that be fair?

OTOH there haven't been many "truly free markets" for a long time. If we institute a "truly free market" then PERHAPS 10 years later some of the previous free market advocates might have changed their minds? It would be interesting to run the experiment and find out. If the experiment worked great then I'd want to be in on it. If it worked bad then I'd be happier to watch the experiment from afar. If a "partially free market" might be better than a "truly free market", then how much "partial freedom" is optimal?

Edited June 18, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Moped]

Voted Liberatarian last time and would do so again, but I want to see another conservative on the Supreme Court, which we all know Obama won't do. So I will vote for Romny. But I see little difference between either the Democrats and the Republicans. They just trade around special interests from time to time and suck the rest of us dry.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That was good, Lester, thanks.

True capitalism has never been without government meddling. The ideas are sound. It's those people who want something for nothing who

get in the way of it. We would actually have that concept today, because it fits in with the Constitution quite well. All the laws that have been

passed since the beginning, if checked with constitutionality, might not have been passed. Plus, the additional burden of the Marxist

doctrine injected in our govenment, like income taxation and welfare, have only destroyed the opportunity that capitalism allows for. I'd be

willing to bet you that capitalism is not far off from what Jefferson and his kind envisioned.

Capitalism has never been allowed to exist without someone bastardising it to the point of it not being capitalism.

[Guest Sooner]

I frequent a great many blogs and view many comments from those who support Ron. While he has many ideas with which I agree, his foreign policy positions leave a great deal of room for improvement. Moreover, Ron's supporters are nearly as rabid as those of the poseur in the White House. Job Number One is to put someone in the White House other than its current occupant in 2013. Everything else pales in importance. Any vote made for someone other than Romney is a vote for the current Manchurian Candidate of a President, make no mistake.

[kieefer]

Hi Kiefer. Maybe I'm not getting what you mean.

Half of libertarianism is traditional old fashioned early american Jeffersonian liberalism and so about half of it ought to sound "liberal" though those attitudes have been gradually fading from the democrat party and modern liberals for decades. Though occasional modern liberals will still give it lip service.

Such early conservative sentiments as "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop." Those are conservative ideas hundreds of years old in the good ole USA.

If some self-described "true conservative" wants us to keep signing treaties, strutting off to war and meddling in other's affairs, then that IS NOT a traditional USA conservative position. Challenging such ideas is "being conservative", not "sounding like a liberal".

Oft-quoted but containing more than a grain of truth--

Glad this was discussed and explained better than I could say it.

I think we could stand 4yrs of Libertarian direction a whole lot better than what we've seen in the last four. The days of a happy medium are long gone I'm afraid, assuming we ever had some in our history.

We need to end this liberalism and have a nice mix Conservatism and Libertarianism.

Speaking of anarchy, aren't we seeing this first hand with BHO's ruling on immigration, BHO's healthcare law, NY's restricting what we drink and eat? How many items in your house or your car that is being regulated by the government?

Maybe a better word for it is Tyranny.

[RobertNashville]

...Speaking of anarchy, aren't we seeing this first hand with BHO's ruling on immigration, BHO's healthcare law, NY's restricting what we drink and eat? How many items in your house or your car that is being regulated by the government? Maybe a better word for it is Tyranny.

Yuuup....that (the above) isn't anarchy; it's good old fashioned tyranny.

[enfield]

I think we could stand 4yrs of Libertarian direction a whole lot better than what we've seen in the last four.

No argument about that!