Thread: Any Libertarians in the House?

Just wondering if there's any Libertarians (big or little L), Objectivists, Classic Liberals, Minarchists, or Anarcho-Capitalists here.

It's always nice to be among friends when it comes to politics.

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.

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

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.

Definitely a libertarian here, pretty strict also on foreign policy which I differ heavily from UM

In all realities sense, the military industrial complex needs to expand, so it continually needs new wars and threats and enemies and what good way to have an endless war like the war on terror, its a war on an enemy we helped train ourselves years ago, we currently allow and partake in opium smuggling from Afghanistan, and we destroyed millions of lives in iraq, which in turn cause immagration/refugee chaos in neighboring territories. IMO the war on terror must end. It must end because it is a fraud created by our own cia and military, they need to keep war contractors and weapons manufacturers happy, and the whole military industry itself needs war to sustain itself, it needs massive death to stay afloat, it IS IMMORAL and must end.

That is why I am so strong in my foreign policy with a libertarian approach.

Sorry, had to vent a little, have been thinking too much about....stupid politics...why do i even bother sometimes? lol

Originally Posted by guerilla

, we currently allow and partake in opium smuggling from Afghanistan

Oh if you only knew. Opium is "illegal" in Afghanistan, but I drive by hundreds of football field sized fields of it on a daily basis. I've even sat down, ate lunch, and had a conversation with the biggest opium smuggler in the world, and he's an Afghan General in the police force that is supposed to stop it!

But partake in it? No. We leave the drug trade alone. That is the official policy on opium for us.

i consider myself a libertarian....but i think it is an oxymoron to belong to a Libertarian party.....i think most people would be considered libertarians if tested unbiasedly.......

Originally Posted by poopman

.....i think most people would be considered libertarians if tested unbiasedly.......

Riiiiiiiiiiight. That's why extensive social welfare programs and regulatory agencies exist in every democracy in the world.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Riiiiiiiiiiight. That's why extensive social welfare programs and regulatory agencies exist in every democracy in the world.

Might be due to bias. Just sayin'.

Originally Posted by Out of the Blue

Just wondering if there's any Libertarians (big or little L), Objectivists, Classic Liberals, Minarchists, or Anarcho-Capitalists here.

It's always nice to be among friends when it comes to politics.

Market Anarchist right here.

So what you're saying is that you can provide no rationale by which Libertarianism is relevant to human civilization as it has actually developed, but a lot of people would say the tenets sound about right as long as those tenets are stated as vaguely as possible?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

So what you're saying is that you can provide no rationale by which Libertarianism is relevant to human civilization as it has actually developed,

Erm, no. I never said anything of the sort. Good strawman though.

but a lot of people would say the tenets sound about right as long as those tenets are stated as vaguely as possible?

I believe I said most would agree with property rights and non-aggression, thus making them "libertarian, in a very weak sense of the word," meaning negligible at best. I think this is due to the fact that people will say they believe in those two things but then advocate actions that violate property rights and non-aggression, which is why I added "in a very weak sense." Understand? I mentioned nothing about libertarianism and its relevance to human civilization. I only gave my perspective on poopman's post and what he may have meant. I didn't say I agreed with him, either.

blueline, cmon man. you understand that most people consider personal freedom very important. you understand that at a very deep level and you are obviously very well read. i dont understand why people instead of standing up for simple pillars of life back down when confronted on it. Be a man and stand up for something. these weak minded people that say that people arent for personal rights and personal responsibility are obviously wrong...its really simple. dont join in on their weakness.

Originally Posted by poopman

blueline, cmon man. you understand that most people consider personal freedom very important. you understand that at a very deep level and you are obviously very well read. i dont understand why people instead of standing up for simple pillars of life back down when confronted on it. Be a man and stand up for something. these weak minded people that say that people arent for personal rights and personal responsibility are obviously wrong...its really simple. dont join in on their weakness.

Preaching to the choir, man.

As I said, they are "libertarian in a very weak sense of the word." To some, that might make them libertarians. To me, specifically, it does not.

Yup, I'm a libertarian here, though I would identify as Independent. I still wish Ron Paul had won in the 2008 elections, impossible as that would have been. I agree with the ideologies of personal freedom and limited government, though some things like basic police and fire support should be handled at the state or federal level. As for welfare and other such systems, I feel like they should be privately owned, if they exist. Private health insurance works, so I see no particular reason why things like independent welfare-type charities can't exist. As others in this thread have stated, private charities are generally more motivated and efficient because they are often personally involved. Also, I would say that I'm against "policing the world", as Ron Paul would put it. I am all for helping people, but we really have to get our own acts together first. Burying ourselves in incomprehensible debt trying to fight wars on terror isn't going to get us very far.