Selfishly I don't have a problem with you feeling that way, because your end political goals often align with mine. I think the issue that others were raising is that it is a touchstone of libertarian philosophy (at least those not from the Friedman/utilitarian or Objectivist schools) that value judgments are subjective and that it violates, the non-aggression principle (rule #1 of libertarianism) to use force or coercion, whether directly or indirectly through support of state action, to impose your value judgments on others. I also don't see how any libertarian could support the Federal Bank.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue in your first main paragraph but I agree, I guess. Perhaps I missed part of a conversation that I wasn't having. Also, there are issues that just aren't that important or interesting to me. I understand the Federal Bank isn't actually Federal but that's behind a hundred other issues that I find more important. Does the person I vote for value individual liberties first and foremost? Does he/she wish to impose his morality on other humans generally? Does he/she want to use the military to depose foreign leaders, prop up other leaders, and generally fuck with foreign politics on a whim? Is this person working to decrease the creeping power of the federal government and the erosion of individual liberties? Does he/she value personal property rights and the right to contract freely? These are important to me.
I will say the party that decides they value public lands and wildlife habitat/the environment, while also not trying to fuck with my ability to hunt or fish or carry a firearm to meet those ends would get my vote, but that shit doesn't exist.
I'm not disagreeing that man has evolved to prefer associating and cooperating as a means of survival and to avoid conflict, and I am not discounting the emotional and psychological elements at play, but I don't see how you can support the conclusion that we are just a flock of homogeneous parts to a whole acting pursuant to a common logic and understanding. We are talking about human minds here, not the menstrual cycles of the secretaries across the hall from me.
There's nothing wrong with gradualism and prioritizing the areas where you want to eliminate State intrusion. There is no Rothbardian "magical button" to instantaneously abolish the State.
It doesn't have to be entirely one way or the other (actions undertaken by a group are all always individually reasoned conscious decisions and all decisions are blindly following the leader). There's subtlety beyond that. Both things happen.
im interested in what constitutes a state to an ancap, because that is a concept that ive been confused about and i know it deviates from the traditional anarchist & communist views of a state ive read about private defense agencies and dispute resolution organizations - while these are market-centric solutions, would you personally consider these to be a state apparatus? or is it a matter of centralization?
iirc the last time we argued about this DRO's got thrown around heavily and still make me laugh at the absurdity
Well yeah its a radical philosophy Communists don't get to say" well I am pro free markets but still a communist" But TBF libertarian socialism, real anarchism, and its right wing offshoots have a much looser framework than communism or facism.
I really don't know what the fuck I am. Trying to label someone is almost always detrimental because no one ascribes to a labeled position 100%. I used to be (R), but like a normal (R). I was just a conservative guy. Redav is quick to point out that isn't a true Libertarian, just a disenfranchised (R), so I really have no say in Libertarianism. And maybe he's right, I don't fucking know. I agree with Johnson on most things, I think the (L) platform reflects a lot of what I believe. I think Tiffin was right, tho, that it seems a certain set of posters just like to bully their way around and give overtures that they accept other philosophical ideas, they really don't and just treat them like a rich girl treats a commoner. "Oh, you went to JCPenny for that skirt! That looks so cute on you." I can't stand the fucking Christian Right, I can't stand the pretentious liberal think tank. Does that make me a solid, dyed-in-the-wool Libertarian? Probably not. But I don't care. Voting this way just feels right, labels be damned.
IIRC, I mentioned DROs as an example of a free market alternative, but not as THE alternative. I wouldn't oppose any state alternative that was non-coercive in nature. I know that's a can of worms in itself, and I'll try and remember to expand on that when I get to a computer (on the phone) Entrepreneurs in a free market address problems and inefficiencies. the conditions don't currently exist for an innovative, free market approach to government, and there is no incentive for creative destruction in goods and services currently monopolized by the state. i am confident, however, that cooperating profit-seeking entrepreneurs are far more capable and better incentivized to address the areas traditionally left to the state than is a coercive power-seeking politician or bureaucrat. And I know the voluntary approach is morally superior and just. Again, on phone. I know I didn't really respond to the points/questions raised. I'll try to later
I don't know, dude. It was something you hinted at earlier ITT. I could go back and quote you, but you would argue the semantics and I would say what he seemed like you were saying and bla bla bla. How things go in the offseason. Sorry to offend you, you're a good dude.
I understand your frusteation. I can't imagine what's it's like being a reasonable R and the shit they're starting to produce. I would seek an alternative too. I'm not really a Democrat either so I understand just having to vote for the party that's closest to what you want
Is this the thread where we use the worst/most extreme examples of libertarianism as the standard for the party as a whole? Because that's always fun and productive....
The party is by definition extremely conservative, just without the religious stuff that the extreme end of the Republicans like. Trying to package it as a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party for moderates is fine marketing and a well done by Johnson, but it is ludicrous.
Which libertarian policies do you consider attractive to moderates caught between the two parties. By all means astonish me with your moderate libertarianism.
We're cool with everyone doing as much faggotry as they wish as long as it doesn't interfere with us or our thread.
I think it is more the moderates who are offended by newborn Libertarians who think it is a centrist party than the Lefties are by the dyed in wool Libertarians.
anyway here's y'all's platform for this election PREAMBLE As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power. In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles. These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual. We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose. Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent. We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life—accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action—accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property—accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation. Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market. 1.0 Personal Liberty Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and must accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. 1.1 Self-Ownership Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life. 1.2 Expression and Communication We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion. 1.3 Privacy Libertarians advocate individual privacy and government transparency. We are committed to ending government’s practice of spying on everyone. We support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, property, and communications. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. 1.4 Personal Relationships Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. 1.5 Abortion Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. 1.6 Parental Rights Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect. 1.7 Crime and Justice The prescribed role of government is to protect the rights of every individual including the right to life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. The constitutional rights of the criminally accused, including due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must be preserved. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law. 1.8 Death Penalty We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state. 1.9 Self-Defense The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights—life, liberty, and justly acquired property—against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition. 2.0 Economic Liberty Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society. 2.1 Property and Contract As respect for property rights is fundamental to maintaining a free and prosperous society, it follows that the freedom to contract to obtain, retain, profit from, manage, or dispose of one’s property must also be upheld. Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property, as long as their choices do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, governmental limits on profits, governmental production mandates, and governmental controls on prices of goods and services (including wages, rents, and interest) are abridgements of such fundamental rights. For voluntary dealings among private entities, parties should be free to choose with whom they trade and set whatever trade terms are mutually agreeable. 2.2 Environment Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required. 2.3 Energy and Resources While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production. 2.4 Government Finance and Spending All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes. 2.5 Government Employees We favor repealing any requirement that one must join or pay dues to a union as a condition of government employment. We advocate replacing defined-benefit pensions with defined-contribution plans, as are commonly offered in the private sector, so as not to impose debt on future generations without their consent. 2.6 Money and Financial Markets We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Markets are not actually free unless fraud is vigorously combated. Those who enjoy the possibility of profits must not impose risks of losses upon others, such as through government guarantees or bailouts. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws. 2.7 Marketplace Freedom Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association. We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest. Government should not compete with private enterprise. 2.8 Labor Markets Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union. Bargaining should be free of government interference, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain. 2.9 Education Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education. 2.10 Health Care We favor a free-market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines. 2.11 Retirement and Income Security Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become even more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm. 3.0 Securing Liberty The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments. 3.1 National Defense We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service. 3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government’s use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law. 3.3 International Affairs American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups. 3.4 Free Trade and Migration We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property. 3.5 Rights and Discrimination Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that “right.” We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts and other free-market solutions. 3.6 Representative Government We support election systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be free to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives. We advocate initiative, referendum, recall and repeal when used as popular checks on government. 3.7 Self-Determination Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty. 4.0 Omissions Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.
Sounds mostly okay... I'm sure in the extremely unlikely event that they ever hold any significant political power, after a few decades/years of corruption they'll fall in line like everyone else...
That's my begrudging plan, after voting Republican for 20+ years. But that's because I don't see Libertarian policy as viable for my socially liberal, fiscally moderate beliefs, and I think Trump is a terrible choice vs a typical, lying hawk Democrat. As much as it pains me to admit, the lefties who argued that Rockefeller Republicans aren't represented by the Republican party were right. But my point isn't that voting Libertarian is ludicrous, it is that thinking the Libertarian party is the centrist or moderate alternative is ludicrous. It is my opinion that some disenfrachised moderate Republicans have latched on to the Libertarian party without a real understanding of what that party stands for. I have no doubt there are Libertarians on here that agree with their platform, and that's fine, but I also think there are people on here calling themselves libertarian purely because it seems cool and protesty. You've seen posters who think Johnson is a better candidate than Hillary for Bernie supporters, right? You see an intersection on the Venn diagram for Bernie supporters and Libertarians? Maybe on 2 topics. The Libertarian party is simply on the right extreme of the Republican party on most issues, and on the left extreme of a few issues. That's not moderate.
The platform is glorious. It pretty much says, "Get the fuck off my lawn, and while you're at it stay off your neighbor's lawn too".
A ton of people in this country vote based on one or a couple issues I don't disagree with anything you said but just wanted to state that
Agreed. It isn't Centrist/moderate at all. Comparing it to right/left with US politics is hard though because our political parties aren't all that ideologically consistent. This may help.
Your urge to herd people into a category where everyone behaves the same and has the same beliefs is normal human behavior, it's how we're wired, but how many "lefties" are voting Clinton when she has shown over and over again she can't be trusted to support their views/beliefs? Are they all suddenly the same as her? No, of course not, but of what's available that's what they most closely identify with and it's pretty much the same for every political ideology. no idea what venn diagram you are referring to, there are a million of them. What exactly are these extreme "libertarian" policies/beliefs/ideals that are so ludicrous to you? I mean sure I'm probably throwing my vote away (it doesn't matter anyway) but I can't imagine anything more disingenuous than voting for something I don't believe in just because it has a chance of winning.
Wow really good thred , congrats OP . IF U WOULD LIKE . I WOULD BE HONORED TO HAVE THIS BUNCH IN MY FOOTBALL THRED CONSIDERING IT'S ON 20 DAYS TILL PRACTICE STARTS . Thanks guys and gals .
You keep changing what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is ludicrous to call libertarian stances on issues centrist, not that the stances themselves are ludicrous (although some of them certainly are). The platform is on this page. You can pretty easily tick off the items as extreme right or, less often, extreme left. Agree competely. Pro choice and marijuana sales, for instance, should be a Republican drums to bang, but for the religious wing of the party. The fact that I agree with the libertarian platform on those topics would make me a progressive liberal in the 2 party system, when they're both stances that, imo, call for less government intrusion.
know Tiffin does not want me to post in here but find this stuff a bit vague. Is this suggesting Roe v Wade should not stand? That there should be no restrictions on abortion beyond fetal viability? Idk what path theyre even attempting to go down regarding parental rights.
think the view that the parties are 'ideologically inconsistent' or inconsistent is b/c the labeling of the parties as either for or against govt intrusion was wrong to begin with. also think you could couch a lot of 'socially liberal' things where progressives want less govt intrusion; as not so much "get govt out of our lives" but more so that these sort of social standards should have thresholds decided on a federal level...so that there is uniformity and the right to travel + commerce is not interfered with.
It's just silly to apply a "socially liberal" label to the Libertarian Party when they want to stop funding social programs and oppose the Civil Rights Act.
Agreed. They aren't socially liberal. They are socially tolerant. Whether or not they share your beliefs is irrelevant to them, they stand for you being able to have the right to exercise your beliefs. In regard to social programs, that is a form of a large government taking money (through taxes) and redistributing it to other people. They are for charities doing that work instead of the force of the government. In regard to the Civil Rights Act, they are for people being treated equally but they are against the Government mandates. Segregation was a creation of a racist government. They believe that if left alone, people will make the right decisions or somebody else will step in to fill those voids. For instance, no retail business wants to use money and square footage to maintain separate black and white, mens and womens bathrooms. If a racist restaurant owner puts up a whites only sign, there is a market opportunity for someone to serve the rest of society.
Abortion is something that even Libertarians are still divided on. Anyone with any sort of a moral compass should be against killing a child. The debate is really when you consider that child to be alive and in need of protection from the state. Gary Johnson is pro choice. Austin Petersen--the more ideological pure Libertarian primary candidate--is pro life because he views the primary role of the state to protect the rights of its people and that baby/fetus needs protection. If a Libertarian won Presidency, it would be highly unlikely they tried to change anything in regard to abortion because it is so far down the list of priorities.