Thread: Any Libertarians in the House?

Yea, you can probably say I have libertarian beliefs. You could probably sum up everything I believe into two words, 'Small government.'

I am a libertarian on everything except foreign policy. Once the whole world has become democratized, I will be libertarian on everything. At that point, the "l" will become an "L" for me. I have come close to joining the Libertarian Party a few times, but I just can't get past their passive platform regarding foreign injustices and threats. But on absolutely everything else, I am right there with them. I am a libertarian because I value freedom, to the point of obsession. But the thing is, I value freedom for the entire world. The rights I want for my country are rights I want for every country.

I am very capitalistic, I believe that letting people keep as much as possible of the money they earn is excellent for stimulating the economy, I think all drugs should be legal, I don't support gun control, I think prostitution should be legal, I think most social programs are terrible for the system, I am pro-choice for the first two trimesters because you can't murder something that has never had the capacity for consciousness, I support the right to gay marriage, I support the right to polygamy, and I believe that the only thing that should ever be illegal is victimization.

I am kind of surprised to hear you say that. Infact thats kind of interesting that you said you were a libertarian. Libertarians normally believe that people should take responsibilty for themself. They also normally believe that a lot of government interference is bad. And it sounded like you agree with that.

But then you said we should use big government to interfer with the lives of everyone around the world? Where is their personal responsibilty? How can you say the government should butt out of our business and should allow us to act freely and also support the government butting into other peoples business all around the world? Who are we to tell others how they should or should not live their lives?

I'm a Jeffersonian Liberal at heart, leaning libertarian when they aren't off in the land of kookdom.

I also espouse most of the Objectivist tenets, though I am a Christian first. Yeah, I know... you can't be both. Ok - let me restate it then:

I believe in the law of identity, and that reality is what it is and not what individuals "define" it to be. I believe that wealth is created by human activity and that the wealth created is a representation of our most valuable asset, which is the time of our lives. I believe that collectivism in any form, including income tax, is slavery and thus immoral. I believe and have witnessed the ways that collectivism destroys creativity, productivity and individuality and quashes the human spirit.

As a free individual, I also believe in God and that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, a belief that has come from personal experience and miraculous events in my own life which was very nearly destroyed in hedonism, narcissism and stupidity. As such, I espouse and try to practice the teachings of Christ, exercised in the context of individual choice and liberty. I believe the imposition and coercion of most religion is not compatible with the way Christ taught us to live and interact with others.

There's my resume'.

I just first read the definition of Libertarianism at the moment so I'm wondering: one of the principles of what is forbidden and counted as infringing on the freedoms of others according to the philosophy is the use of physical force against others, coercion, as I gathered.

What then does the philosophy/politics say about self-defence? If a bandit/murderer attacks someone, hence causing physical force against that person, what would be the after effects? Would it mean the victim is free to do whatever he wants including killing the offender and the situation remaining independent - no intervention from the government or is it the same as with current situations in most countries where the victim of an attacker might end up jailed for causing severe injuries to the offender?

Shortly: does one infringing the freedoms of others lose the right to the freedoms entirely or not?

Originally Posted by Merlock

Shortly: does one infringing the freedoms of others lose his right to the freedoms entirely or not?

Well, the libertarian philosophy mentions that people are the absolute owners of their own lives, but also mentions that this is true to the extent that they allow others the same liberty... I think "how to handle a breach" is kind of where people's belief systems start to differ.

Libertarian is the closest to my beliefs, i suppose. I am not ready to join them, though, as they dont have their stuff together. They are too "all over the place" if you ask me. Libertarianism is more of an ideal than a political party to me.

They are definately less power hungry than dems. and republicans. And currently, neither of them are for small government. Thats why i wont join them either.

I guess im a Libertarian, but I have some different view. I don't think we should identify with a party. As George Washington once said, politacle parties will divide America. He was right.

Yeah I'm the same way. A Libertarian PArty is almost an oxymoron...

Originally Posted by Replicon

Yeah I'm the same way. A Libertarian PArty is almost an oxymoron...

Like an anarchist group (what was that Will Ferrel movie.. I can't remember! The one where a person was writing his life.) :p

Originally Posted by Alric

But then you said we should use big government to interfer with the lives of everyone around the world? Where is their personal responsibilty? How can you say the government should butt out of our business and should allow us to act freely and also support the government butting into other peoples business all around the world? Who are we to tell others how they should or should not live their lives?

I don't think freedom is an imposition on anybody except those who want to ruthelessly control them. I am all for butting in on victimizers. I want the United States to be as free as it can be, but I still want murderers and rapists and such in prison. Like I said, the only thing that should be illegal is victimization. And like we have talked about a lot before, there are some countries that don't have the ability to gain freedom on their own, so we have to take down their victimizers for them. Nobody has a right to oppress the innocent masses.

Well I could put it another way. How can we possibly be free when the government puts huge financial burdens on us? You can't give others freedom by enslaving your own country.

Here is the simple answer Merlock. A lot of libertarians tend to be gun owners. They believe people should take responsibilty for their actions, and in the end you can't always count on someone else protecting you, so you should be ready to defend yourself.

Infact they believe in not only defending themself but also their property. Basicly if you get killed or hurt doing something illegal, its your own fault.

I would consider myself a libertarian. My basic belief is "Do whatever you want as long as you don't stop someone else from doing whatever they want." I wish this was possible but then the government would have no benifit.

Originally Posted by Merlock

What then does the philosophy/politics say about self-defence? If a bandit/murderer attacks someone, hence causing physical force against that person, what would be the after effects? Would it mean the victim is free to do whatever he wants including killing the offender and the situation remaining independent - no intervention from the government or is it the same as with current situations in most countries where the victim of an attacker might end up jailed for causing severe injuries to the offender?

Shortly: does one infringing the freedoms of others lose the right to the freedoms entirely or not?

If you are a libertarian (note the small "L") believing in Anarchy, then it would be up to the victim to handle the manor personally. Maybe by hiring a vigilante to capture the abuser or the victim going after the agressor with their own guns. You see where certain problems could arise there.

If you are a libertarian believing in Minarchy, (extremely reduced government) then you believe it is the government's job to protect your natural rights, including life, liberty, and property. But, self-defense would be legal, because everyone has the freedom to immediately defend any of their rights from an aggressor.

The only body that would be allowed to initiate force would be the government, but only under certain circumstances. For example if someone tries to kill you, you shoot at them and wound them, but they get away. It would then be the job of the Government, or a private police force, to track down the individual and serve the repercussions of their actions.

Libertarian beliefs differ a lot on different issues because the political ideals all center around individualism and freedom, and many people have different beliefs. That is also why I think the idea of a single Libertarian Party is a little bogus, but at least then if you see someone on the ballet under libertarian, you can know to look into them.

[edit] And it's cool seeing as many people who call themselves a libertarian (or something along those lines) on this forum. Coming from California, I don't see much of that. >.< Freaking laws for everything.

Originally Posted by Alric

Well I could put it another way. How can we possibly be free when the government puts huge financial burdens on us? You can't give others freedom by enslaving your own country.

That is the one area where I believe in the higher than otherwise taxing, but if the world would come together and free the world, we would no longer need it. The world has no reason to fear true democracies. I am optimistic on that and believe that the day is coming. I think dictatorship is on its way out. So much of the world is getting fed up with its presence on this planet. I'll give it another maybe 100 years.

I could sum up my one difference from your view by posing this issue... You believe we have a right to not having big government imposed on us, as you've said. Well then, do you think the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan have the same right?

Everyone has the same rights. They just need to stand up for them. I am all for helping the people as long as it doesn't harm us. The problem is we don't have the money to spend on this kind of stuff and its doing harm to our own country.

Besides if you wanted to help them, you would invade, throw out the government then leave the country to rebuild as they wish. How does imposing our will over the country make them free? It doesn'tm which is why we don't have any business there.

And since this is a thread on libertarians I won't feel bad about a little nitpicking. There are a lot of dangers in democracies. A democracy is basicly mob rule, and are not always free. Hence why we are a republic and not a democracy.

Correct, there can never be a single Libertarian party. The only way would be to completely change our government system. Everyone would have to be a libertarian, and ideas would have to be voted on in a different manner. To bad this will NEVER happen.

Does anybody else feel the Libertarian party is being suppressed on both sides of the political spectrum? I dont think the left and the right can afford to let the Libertarians get any ground.

Well republicans are 'supposed' to be conservative. Except now a days you have neoconvervatives, which are anything but conservative. Libertarian would probably fit in well as a republican 20 years ago however.

Originally Posted by Alric

Everyone has the same rights. They just need to stand up for them. I am all for helping the people as long as it doesn't harm us. The problem is we don't have the money to spend on this kind of stuff and its doing harm to our own country.

Besides if you wanted to help them, you would invade, throw out the government then leave the country to rebuild as they wish. How does imposing our will over the country make them free? It doesn'tm which is why we don't have any business there.

And since this is a thread on libertarians I won't feel bad about a little nitpicking. There are a lot of dangers in democracies. A democracy is basicly mob rule, and are not always free. Hence why we are a republic and not a democracy.

We have a democratic republic.

By liberating a country, we are not "imposing our will" on them any more than we are "imposing our will" on our on population when we have a democratic republic. Freedom is not an imposition. It is a right.

Originally Posted by Alric

Well republicans are 'supposed' to be conservative. Except now a days you have neoconvervatives, which are anything but conservative. Libertarian would probably fit in well as a republican 20 years ago however.

I almost don't even know the difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party any more. Their speech is different, but their actions are almost identical.

I really feel like a misfit around Democrats and Republicans because both camps see me as a major dissenter. Every liberal I know considers me a conservative, and every "conservative" I know considers me a liberal. As far as I am concerned, they are all a bunch of liberals because they all think the government has a right to be way up in everybody's business.

Well I wasn't talking about the liberating part but the occupation part. We have a military occupation in Iraq and that doesn't translate over to being 'free'. As long as we are telling them how to form their government and we have troops walking down the streets, we are trying to impose our will on them.

Originally Posted by Alric

Well I wasn't talking about the liberating part but the occupation part. We have a military occupation in Iraq and that doesn't translate over to being 'free'. As long as we are telling them how to form their government and we have troops walking down the streets, we are trying to impose our will on them.

Transition phase. It's necessary for the switch to democracy. Just blasting out the Hussein regime and leaving immediately would have been terrible, and Iraq would have had no chance of freedom.

We can't set up their government for them. That is something they have to do themself.

Are you libertanians also against the following?

domestic policy:
helping poeple in great need, that, for one reason or another, don't have anyone from their community to help them.
foreign policy:
helping a country suffering from some natural disaster.
stoping a genocide in process.

Domestic policy: The welfare condition in America is a joke. Too many people live off it and have no intention of getting jobs. If i were in control, those who need it will get it, and those who show no progress will be booted. If you dont want to cut it in American society, American society shouldnt take care of you.

Foreign policy: America has got nothing but crap for its foreign policy. We are expected to help, and then criticized for it. This is why we cant stop genocide in Africa. I would definately still help out with natural disasters