Tell me about Libertarianism

[Kraftwerk]

Its an interesting school of thought to me. Anyone here a libertarian?

[ninja9578]

Libertarianism They're essentially anarchists, they believe in maximizing individual liberties. Few taxes, few laws, a good ideal, but not realistic. Basically every man for himself. It just doesn't work, politics have to be one for all and all for one. It's like communism, it's a great idea, but it doesn't work. In that spectrum they are far right and close to the bottom.

[cygnus]

that... box... needs arrows or something - i don't like it i think libertarianism is more a frame of mind than an actual desire for anarchy.

[Universal Mind]

Imagine a person more conservative than most Republicans on economic issues and more liberal than most Democrats on social issues and foreign policy. That's a Libertarian. I agree with the Libertarians on pretty much everything, but I am not quite ready to side with them on all foreign policy issues, so I will talk in third person. Libertarians want pretty much everything to be private (even schools, police departments, fire departments, charities, etc.) and to take out nearly all of the federal agencies. They also want the government out of the affairs of businesses unless stealing or some other "real" crime is committed. They believe in having a military, but not one that ever starts a war or that is based in any other countries. They want military only for home defense. They think all personal habits that don't involve victims should be legal. That includes drugs, prostitution, saturated fat, etc. They think church and state should be 100% separate. Libertarians are adamantly against the war on drugs and think it is a Godzilla of a social problem that is deteriorating the country severely. Also, the party thinks high taxes are awful for the national economy because they financially weaken the job creators, and members of the party want to majorly reduce taxes. Most members don't think income should be taxed at all. They pretty much always take the side of less government instead of more. So, Libertarians are not necessarily anarchists, but they are close to it. Some are full blown anarhcists.

[detroitLions1970]

I would have always thought libertarianism to be more of a scalar concept rather then a set absolute. What I mean is, each Libertarian would have his or her own ideals on the formats that libertarianism encompasses: some would be for drugs, some against; others for privatised police, others against. In other words, I think it is a little too 'general' to class libertarianism as a whole on the 'anarchy's cousin' side of the scale. It is, indeed, why there are different schools of anarchism; because ideas aren't entirely shared. People have their reasons. So I'm with cygnus. I think libertarianism is more of a mindset of wanting to be free rather than a next-door anarchism movement.

[Universal Mind]

All Libertarians (and libertarians, with a lower case l... Some libertarians, such as Ron Paul, are not members of the party. I'll use lower case l from now on because it is more encompassing.) are close enough to believing the same things that they can all have the label, but there is a point where somebody is so far away that he can't realistically be called a one. Bill Maher is an example of somebody who used to call himself a libertarian just because he was against the war on drugs and the illegality of prostitution. He is obviously a far leftist, and he apparently got called out on his claim of being a libertarian and quit claiming it. You can't truthfully be a libertarian and vote for Ralph Nader, John Edwards, and Barack Obama. Wanting to make the government ridiculously bigger is the epitome of being anti-libertarian.

[Descensus]

I had a great post typed out but Firefox decided to crash, so here we go again First off, forget everything you've heard about libertarianism. Keep an open mind as to what I'm about to say. Specifically ignore what ninja said . Essentially, modern-day libertarianism can be summed up in three categories. But first, here is a bit of an overview. Libertarianism typically follows a central principle: the Non-Aggression Principle (commonly abbreviated "NAP.") I say typically because, as you will see in the three categories, some members of the movement don't follow the NAP fully, thus becoming inconsistent, and in some cases, not really libertarian at all. Libertarianism also follows strict property rights, specifically the "Right to self-ownership." It is the basis of the NAP. Basically, you own yourself, your property, and your labor, as they are all extensions of your person. Keep this in mind during this post. Now, the NAP is essentially a restatement of the Golden Rule, but with a twist. "Treat others as you would like to be treated" is one way to describe it, but if we want to get political, we can essentially say that the NAP states "Aggression, unless in the form of self-defense, is immoral and unjust." With that central principle, everything else in libertarianism follows. An even more layman overview of libertarianism would be: "libertarianism is the creed of absolute freedom: free markets and personal liberty." Now, let's move on to the three categories. These are essentially generalizations, but I've come to find most people fit into them quite nicely. Of course, your results may vary. Category A: Capital L Libertarians. These people are typically associated with the Libertarian Party or Republican Party. Again, I say typically because not everyone is, such as myself. As you will see in the following text, not everyone associated with the LP or RP are bad or wholly-inconsistent people (example: I know the chairman of the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts and he would likely fit into Category B a lot more than A by any stretch). So people in this category are usually those you see on Fox News, such as Glenn Beck. Two other people are Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root, the Libertarian Party Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates for the 2008 elections. Those three people are libertarian by lip-service. They can say they are libertarian, but, in Glenn Beck's case, they will turn around and start advocating war in the name of "national defense" or government involvement in the markets in the name of "economic security." I usually don't consider these people libertarians at all simply because of how hypocritical and inconsistent they are with real libertarian principles. As I said, they are libertarian by lip-service. They just try to appeal to the radical minority to get attention and, most importantly, votes. Category B: This category can be further summed up with a simple term: minarchist(s). The term "minarchist" essentially means "small government" or "small rule." "Min" being "minimum," and "archist" being "ruler." No, I don't mean "small ruler" like Napoleon Bonaparte . If you really want to get this category simplified, you only have to use the term "night watchman state." Minarchists typically (again, I say typically because not everyone believes this) advocate a night watchman state, meaning they believe the government should provide three basic services: Police, the Military, and Justice (courts). Of course, that means they also advocate taxes to pay for those services, which means they must advocate government control of currency (because if a nation had competing currencies the gov. wouldn't be able to tax the productive populace). Personally, due to the implications of a night watchman state, I believe that is where the inconsistencies of minarchism lie in regards to libertarianism. To put it simply, taxes and government monopolies on anything violate the NAP. However, that is another matter. Of course, there are other minarchists that advocate a basic level of regulation in the markets to secure worker safety and to "level the playing field." Other than that, most minarchists agree on the Justice issue in that the gov. should have control over the courts to be the "final arbitrator" in disputes. Most others have the belief that the government should maintain a small military; one big enough to provide for national defense in case of attack, but not large enough to become involved in the affairs of other sovereign nations. Naturally, there are some that disagree (such as Universal Mind, I believe) and believe we need a military snuff out any possible threat (I may be falsely generalizing his beliefs here), and that is (unfortunately) where the line between Category A and B blurs. Category C: This category is where the anarchists are. A few other terms for anarchists in the libertarian sense are: Libertarian-anarchists, Market-Anarchists, Anarcho-Capitalists, Voluntaryists, etc. Most people confuse anarchy with "chaos" simply due to the commonly-accepted connotations of the word. However, the word "anarchy" comes from the Greek word meaning "without rule" or "without ruler." Chaos or violence is not part of the word at all. I believe people get the connotations of chaos and violence from those silly anarcho-communists or anarcho-collectivists you see donning black clothing, masks and hoods at protests. They're usually the ones throwing the molotov cocktails and rocks at the police. As you can see, there are many schools of anarchism, but I'm talking about the libertarian one. Anyway, Market Anarchists advocate the complete abolition of government and its agencies for a few reasons. One is that it maintains monopolies over services and usually the markets which not only violates the NAP, but the freedom of association (or disassociation). Two is simply due to the historical implications of government (genocide, wars, economic depressions, etc). The third reason is definitely where the line between minarchism and anarchism thickens. Anarchists see minarchism as a lost cause, as government is essentially an institution expressing supposed legitimate (read: illegitimate) authority over a given geographical area, and its very nature is to grow and become ever-more totalitarian. Such things as social contracts or constitutions are mere frippery as they can never be maintained or even followed correctly. (For more on the constitution issue, read Lysander Spooner's No treason: The Constitution of No Authority). The fourth (and final concerning this post) reason is that Market-Anarchists believe and services the government provides or even controls (in any amount) could be provider better, cheaper, more efficiently, and more safely by the free market process. I don't have the time or patience to give a whole economics lesson on that right now, so I'll merely point you to a small reading list: If you are truly interested in learning about libertarianism (as a political theory, not so much economics just yet. I have some books to suggest if you are so interested in free market economics as well), here are some books to peruse: For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard Conceived in Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner Chaos Theory: Two Essays on Market Anarchy by Robert P. Murphy The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul A Foreign Policy of Freedom by Ron Paul Pillars of Prosperty by Ron Paul Freedom Under Seige by Ron Paul Liberalism by Ludwig von Mises Planning for Freedom by Ludwig von Mises Omnipotent Government by Ludwig von Mises Privatization of Roads and Highways by Walter Block Defending the Undefendable by Walter Block

[Universal Mind]

That is an excellent description of libertarianism. I want to recommend one more book-- Why Government Doesn't Work by Harry Browne. He was the Libertarian Party candidate for president of the United States in 1996 and 2000. He fits into the A category in the way that he is a member of the party, but he is very close to being an anarchist. He said flat out in a radio interview I heard a while back that he is not quite an anarchist. I consider him a minarchist. He agrees with you that the government should only engage in war for self defense and should not have bases in other countries. He thinks the U.S. should have stayed out of even World War II. Also, Browne supports the privatization of everything except the government itself. I am a lot closer to being an anarchist now that the healthcare bill has been passed. I am pretty wigged out over it. The government is about to gain a whole new level of control over the public and drive us a major distance closer to economic collapse. Plus, they have set a precedent for a long list of powers they can now argue are legitimate because of the power they already have. We are hauling ass down the slippery slope. European countries in the 20th century in many cases went from rule by the people to totalitarianism very quickly. It can happen here too, and it looks like it very well might. That suggests something I have thought about a lot and that you just mentioned-- the existence of a government results in a growing government that only gets bigger and bigger. I am really rethinking my views on preemptive war. For one thing, I don't know when the current wars will ever end. I thought they would have been over long ago. They will be going on for the rest of my life for all I know now. They definitely have created certain positive circumstances that would not have happened otherwise, but they have also caused a whole lot of problems, such as the running up of a debt that very well might collapse our economy. I still don't know how to make private police, military, and courts work, but I very much want to figure out a way. We are watching the Bill of Rights go up in flames, and such a thing is starting to seem like the inevitable result of having a government. The big problem is that the only people who have the will and the skills necessary to get powerful in politics are the most full of shit, cold blooded, and power obsessed people out there. Government inherently involves power in the hands of such people. That part of the picture is extremely dangerous.

[Descensus]

I am really rethinking my views on preemptive war. For one thing, I don't know when the current wars will ever end. I thought they would have been over long ago. They will be going on for the rest of my life for all I know now. They definitely have created certain positive circumstances that would not have happened otherwise, but they have also caused a whole lot of problems, such as the running up of a debt that very well might collapse our economy. I still don't know how to make private police, military, and courts work, but I very much want to figure out a way. We are watching the Bill of Rights go up in flames, and such a thing is starting to seem like the inevitable result of having a government. The big problem is that the only people who have the will and the skills necessary to get powerful in politics are the most full of shit, cold blooded, and power obsessed people out there. Government inherently involves power in the hands of such people. That part of the picture is extremely dangerous. I don't want to bring this topic off it's original purpose, but I feel I need to address this. The problem with the types of libertarians that are for domestic freedom but favor foreign intervention is that they think the two are mutually exclusive. The fact is, you can't have one without the other. You can't have pure domestic freedom while having tons of wars abroad because it affects the freedom at home. Taxes are raised, "protective measures" are introduced, and eventually we're left with neither foreign freedom or domestic freedom.

[Universal Mind]

I usually say I am libertarian on pretty much everything except foreign policy. I am not quick to call myself a libertarian, but I think I can truthfully say I am a domestic libertarian. It is true that wars screw with domestic libertarian policies, but I am not for that. I think complete military isolationism poses certain dangers. Sometimes it's best to strike an enemy before he strikes you. However, I also think a lot of the threats we have had would have never existed if we had kept our asses at home. I don't know what to think about our worldwide military base set up now. It might be unnecessary.

[detroitLions1970]

I think complete military isolationism poses certain dangers. Sometimes it's best to strike an enemy before he strikes you. However, I also think a lot of the threats we have had would have never existed if we had kept our asses at home. I don't know what to think about our worldwide military base set up now. It might be unnecessary. Did you ever see the movie 'Black Hawk Down' about the US intervention within Somalia Universal Mind? Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the movie loosely based on a true story? My point is, if a civil population is allowed to propagate a huge amount of firearms and other weaponry (which libertarianism would allow), and the local population chooses to revolt to an intervention... You get the point. Lots of bang and very little success to the infiltrator.

[Universal Mind]

Did you ever see the movie 'Black Hawk Down' about the US intervention within Somalia Universal Mind? Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the movie loosely based on a true story? My point is, if a civil population is allowed to propagate a huge amount of firearms and other weaponry (which libertarianism would allow), and the local population chooses to revolt to an intervention... You get the point. Lots of bang and very little success to the infiltrator. Yeah, I've seen the movie twice, and it's a true story. Somalia didn't have much of a government. That was their problem. We probably have more fire arms per capita here than they had. I live in in a suburban area outside of Jackson, Mississippi, and I think there are more guns in my neighborhood than people. Knowledge of that probably has a lot to do with why burglaries never happen in my neighborhood. Another way of looking at the situation is that we need to be able to revolt like those Somalians if our government ever really gets out of hand. Totalitarianism is a very real threat, as history has shown repeatedly. We have to be prepared for it.

[detroitLions1970]

Another way of looking at the situation is that we need to be able to revolt like those Somalians if our government ever really gets out of hand. Totalitarianism is a very real threat, as history has shown repeatedly. We have to be prepared for it. Unfortunately, with government's structure, all it takes is one bad egg to get the top job and everybody beneath falls to 'I don't want to be the guy that spoke up' status. Hey, at least you Americans have the ways and means. If it happened in a place like, say, Australia, everybody would go; "Ahh, she'll be right mate" and get back to watching the cricket.

[Descensus]

I usually say I am libertarian on pretty much everything except foreign policy. I am not quick to call myself a libertarian, but I think I can truthfully say I am a domestic libertarian. It is true that wars screw with domestic libertarian policies, but I am not for that. I think complete military isolationism poses certain dangers. Sometimes it's best to strike an enemy before he strikes you. However, I also think a lot of the threats we have had would have never existed if we had kept our asses at home. I don't know what to think about our worldwide military base set up now. It might be unnecessary. I dislike the term "isolationism," because people tend to attribute it with libertarianism, which is false. The minarchist libertarians advocate a defensive army but fully encourage free-trade, which goes against the very definition of isolationism, which is the rejection of involvement in foreign and economic affairs with other nations. Just because a small, defensive army is used doesn't make a nation isolationist. It makes them non-interventionist. As for striking an enemy before he strikes you, that goes along with self-defense. However, it is a touchy subject. If a serial killer is hovering over your bed with a knife, it would be in your best interest to counteract the killer's aggression with aggression of your own. That would be classified as self-defense. However, if a guy is standing in your kitchen with no weapons (yet is still trespassing), it would not be self-defense to kill him on the spot. To be honest it depends on the proximity of the threat and the seriousness of the threat. Iraq (to use a common example) was neither in our proximity, nor serious. The point of foreign policy when it comes to libertarianism is to not be in a position where defense is needed. The non-initiation of aggression will keep people, territories, or nations out of lots of trouble.

[Kraftwerk]

I had a great post typed out but Firefox decided to crash, so here we go again First off, forget everything you've heard about libertarianism. Keep an open mind as to what I'm about to say. Specifically ignore what ninja said . Essentially, modern-day libertarianism can be summed up in three categories. But first, here is a bit of an overview. Libertarianism typically follows a central principle: the Non-Aggression Principle (commonly abbreviated "NAP.") I say typically because, as you will see in the three categories, some members of the movement don't follow the NAP fully, thus becoming inconsistent, and in some cases, not really libertarian at all. Libertarianism also follows strict property rights, specifically the "Right to self-ownership." It is the basis of the NAP. Basically, you own yourself, your property, and your labor, as they are all extensions of your person. Keep this in mind during this post. Now, the NAP is essentially a restatement of the Golden Rule, but with a twist. "Treat others as you would like to be treated" is one way to describe it, but if we want to get political, we can essentially say that the NAP states "Aggression, unless in the form of self-defense, is immoral and unjust." With that central principle, everything else in libertarianism follows. An even more layman overview of libertarianism would be: "libertarianism is the creed of absolute freedom: free markets and personal liberty." Now, let's move on to the three categories. These are essentially generalizations, but I've come to find most people fit into them quite nicely. Of course, your results may vary. Category A: Capital L Libertarians. These people are typically associated with the Libertarian Party or Republican Party. Again, I say typically because not everyone is, such as myself. As you will see in the following text, not everyone associated with the LP or RP are bad or wholly-inconsistent people (example: I know the chairman of the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts and he would likely fit into Category B a lot more than A by any stretch). So people in this category are usually those you see on Fox News, such as Glenn Beck. Two other people are Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root, the Libertarian Party Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates for the 2008 elections. Those three people are libertarian by lip-service. They can say they are libertarian, but, in Glenn Beck's case, they will turn around and start advocating war in the name of "national defense" or government involvement in the markets in the name of "economic security." I usually don't consider these people libertarians at all simply because of how hypocritical and inconsistent they are with real libertarian principles. As I said, they are libertarian by lip-service. They just try to appeal to the radical minority to get attention and, most importantly, votes. Category B: This category can be further summed up with a simple term: minarchist(s). The term "minarchist" essentially means "small government" or "small rule." "Min" being "minimum," and "archist" being "ruler." No, I don't mean "small ruler" like Napoleon Bonaparte . If you really want to get this category simplified, you only have to use the term "night watchman state." Minarchists typically (again, I say typically because not everyone believes this) advocate a night watchman state, meaning they believe the government should provide three basic services: Police, the Military, and Justice (courts). Of course, that means they also advocate taxes to pay for those services, which means they must advocate government control of currency (because if a nation had competing currencies the gov. wouldn't be able to tax the productive populace). Personally, due to the implications of a night watchman state, I believe that is where the inconsistencies of minarchism lie in regards to libertarianism. To put it simply, taxes and government monopolies on anything violate the NAP. However, that is another matter. Of course, there are other minarchists that advocate a basic level of regulation in the markets to secure worker safety and to "level the playing field." Other than that, most minarchists agree on the Justice issue in that the gov. should have control over the courts to be the "final arbitrator" in disputes. Most others have the belief that the government should maintain a small military; one big enough to provide for national defense in case of attack, but not large enough to become involved in the affairs of other sovereign nations. Naturally, there are some that disagree (such as Universal Mind, I believe) and believe we need a military snuff out any possible threat (I may be falsely generalizing his beliefs here), and that is (unfortunately) where the line between Category A and B blurs. Category C: This category is where the anarchists are. A few other terms for anarchists in the libertarian sense are: Libertarian-anarchists, Market-Anarchists, Anarcho-Capitalists, Voluntaryists, etc. Most people confuse anarchy with "chaos" simply due to the commonly-accepted connotations of the word. However, the word "anarchy" comes from the Greek word meaning "without rule" or "without ruler." Chaos or violence is not part of the word at all. I believe people get the connotations of chaos and violence from those silly anarcho-communists or anarcho-collectivists you see donning black clothing, masks and hoods at protests. They're usually the ones throwing the molotov cocktails and rocks at the police. As you can see, there are many schools of anarchism, but I'm talking about the libertarian one. Anyway, Market Anarchists advocate the complete abolition of government and its agencies for a few reasons. One is that it maintains monopolies over services and usually the markets which not only violates the NAP, but the freedom of association (or disassociation). Two is simply due to the historical implications of government (genocide, wars, economic depressions, etc). The third reason is definitely where the line between minarchism and anarchism thickens. Anarchists see minarchism as a lost cause, as government is essentially an institution expressing supposed legitimate (read: illegitimate) authority over a given geographical area, and its very nature is to grow and become ever-more totalitarian. Such things as social contracts or constitutions are mere frippery as they can never be maintained or even followed correctly. (For more on the constitution issue, read Lysander Spooner's No treason: The Constitution of No Authority). The fourth (and final concerning this post) reason is that Market-Anarchists believe and services the government provides or even controls (in any amount) could be provider better, cheaper, more efficiently, and more safely by the free market process. I don't have the time or patience to give a whole economics lesson on that right now, so I'll merely point you to a small reading list: If you are truly interested in learning about libertarianism (as a political theory, not so much economics just yet. I have some books to suggest if you are so interested in free market economics as well), here are some books to peruse: For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard Conceived in Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner Chaos Theory: Two Essays on Market Anarchy by Robert P. Murphy The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul A Foreign Policy of Freedom by Ron Paul Pillars of Prosperty by Ron Paul Freedom Under Seige by Ron Paul Liberalism by Ludwig von Mises Planning for Freedom by Ludwig von Mises Omnipotent Government by Ludwig von Mises Privatization of Roads and Highways by Walter Block Defending the Undefendable by Walter Block Thank you very much for this handy post. And thank you guys for all the great answers!

[Universal Mind]

BLUELINE, I was of course talking about military isolationism. I disagree with you about Iraq, but let's not get into that here.

[Descensus]

BLUELINE, I was of course talking about military isolationism. I disagree with you about Iraq, but let's not get into that here. In that case, I see nothing wrong with military isolationism. If it means keeping out of trouble/the sovereign business of others, fine with me.