Think you are a Libertarian?

It's become quite a trend in recent years to self-identify as a "Libertarian." Some people simply have no clue what libertarianism is all about, some narrowly focus on the aspects of the Libertarian platform with which they strongly agree, ignoring the rest and then others — the hardcore Libertarians — are well read, do their research and make an informed choice to identify as Libertarians, choosing to reject criticisms and believe that in the long run, the untested libertarian ideology is sound. The last group will be unmoved by anything I might have to say and though I disagree with them on many issues, I respect their opinions.

I'd like to point out a few things would-be Libertarians may not realize.


Real Libertarians are fundamentally anarchists

Here are a couple quotes from some of the fathers of modern American Libertarianism:

"Rothbard was the architect of the body of thought known around the world as libertarianism. This radically anti-state political philosophy unites free-market economics, a no-exceptions attachment to private property rights, a profound concern for human liberty, and a love of peace, with the conclusion that society should be completely free to develop absent any interference from the state, which can and should be eliminated."

—Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., Mises Daily, April 08, 2005

"In trying freedom, in abolishing the State, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain."

—Murray N. Rothbard, For A New Liberty The Libertarian Manifesto, 1973

Murray Rothbard of course didn't consider himself an anarchist while he drew much inspiration from many anarchists groups, he usually found some aspect of them to be too socialist or too collectivist or too something, he even invented a term for somebody who wants to abolish government but isn't an anarchist, nonarchist:

"Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist."

—Murray N. Rothbard, writing pseudonymously as Aubrey Herbert in an unpublished article for Faith and Freedom, 1950's


Most Libertarian ideologues are for open borders

This is one of the more entertaining ironies I come across when the same people who say things like, "Mexicans are taking our jobs," go on to identify themselves as Libertarians.

"Libertarians advocate free immigration in part because immigration restrictions are highly inefficient. When economists try to measure the deadweight loss immigration restrictions cause, they typically estimate that eliminating all immigration restrictions would double world GDP. That is, we could add another $70 trillion to the world economy in a few years if only we liberalized immigration laws."

—Jason Brenan, Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford University Press (2012)

"Immigration laws deny very basic human rights: The right to accept a job offer from a willing employer and the right to rent an apartment from a willing landlord. The predictable result for people born on the wrong side of the border is severe poverty and worse. This creates a strong moral presumption against immigration restrictions."

—Bryan Caplan, Libetarian Economics professor at George Mason University, in a 2013 blog post.


Libertarians are anti-labor

In addition to promoting the abolition of any and all trade unions, and until the state itself can be dissolved, Libertarians want to do away with anything that might stand between an employer and the exploitation of workers, including the abolition of OSHA, the NLRB, the repeal of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the repeal of all minimum wage laws, etc. Not to mention that they are philosophically in favor of open borders precisely because nobody should have the power to prevent businesses from choosing which employees they can hire.

"What is today euphemistically called the right to strike is in fact the right of striking workers, by recourse to violence, to prevent people who want to work from working"

—Ludwig von Mises, Christian Economics, April 28, 1964

"An employer should have the right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees."

—National Platform of the Libertarian Party, 2002


A Libetarian ran the Fed from 1987 to 2006

I bring this up because a lot of "Libertarians," particularly Paulites and Ron Paul himself, rant on and on about the Fed. I actually agree but what I'd like to point out is that Alan Greenspan has always described himself as a lifelong Libertarian. He is the most famous acolyte of Ayn Rand, having been a part of her inner circle / pseduo-cult, "The Collective" in the 50's and 60's.

"Ayn Rand became a stabilizing force in my life. It hadn't taken long for us to have a meeting of the minds -- mostly my mind meeting hers -- and in the fifties and early sixties I became a regular at the weekly gatherings at her apartment. She was a wholly original thinker, sharply analytical, strong-willed, highly principled, and very insistent on rationality as the highest value."

—Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence

Ronald Reagan appointed Greenspan to the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve in 1987, a position he held until his retirement in 2006. It bears mentioning that Ayn Rand, sociopath and all around sh*t person, herself railed against Libertarians on numerous occasions but that's never stopped her from being cited as an influence by a majority of modern American Libertarians... oh and Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan (just a fun side note).

Libertarians believe in a free and unregulated market and oppose Government subsidies... or do they?

Arguably, two of the most prominent "Libertarians" alive today are Charles and David Koch. In the 70's the provided much of the funding to the early Libertarian Party which explains why David Koch was on the 1980 Libertarian Party ticket for VP. The fact that ran one of the two money man for VP in 1980 should be enough to scare anyone into sobriety. They were also founded the Cato Institute in 1974 which was originally called the Charles Koch Foundation. You may recall in 2012 that they sued to regain more control.

Charles Koch said in a recent WSJ op-ed, that had many aspiring "Libertarians," gushing:

"Far too many businesses have been all too eager to lobby for maintaining and increasing subsidies and mandates paid by taxpayers and consumers."

I agree. In fact, I'm really fed up with the Kochs spending tens of millions of dollars a year to lobby for things like the subsidies they get.

- Koch industries and others in the oil industry receive billions of dollars a year in subsidies through something called the Percentage Deduction Allowance.

- They received somewhere north of $85 million in government contracts during the Bush years.

- A subsidiary of Koch Industries operates the Flint Hills Refinery in Alaska. When it started operating in the red, rather than invest any of their own billions in their own business, they asked then Governor, Sarah Palin for a tax payer bail-out.

The list goes on and on — tax payer subsidized roads for GP loggers is another one off the top of my head. Since I cannot say enough bad things about the Kochs and this is a thread about the Libertarian Party/Libertarianism, let me leave you with a list of some of things in the Libertarian Party's 1980 platform:

“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
“We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”

a reply to: theantediluvian

S&F!

It sounds to me that they are more about being Capitalists than being true Libertarians as those who would be self sufficient are in no need of business, trade, families etc.

Anarcho-Capitalism relies on exploiting the herd!

It is just as disgusting as communism!

a reply to: theantediluvian

Modern Libertarianism is very simple... It is synonymous with Classical Liberalism, which is most descriptive of most of the founders of America. The reason for the name change is also simple. The early 20th century Progressives hijacked the term liberal and then redefined it, and that definition still stands today. Much like the Homosexual community hijacked the term gay and redefined it. When something becomes unpopular, that which is unpopular will take a term that is popular or common and apply it to themselves, thereby changing the meaning and definition over time, and this works great because the vast majority of people in this God forsaken nation have a very short attention span and an even shorter memory.

a reply to: theantediluvian

As stated in another thread,

"I'm a libertarian because it's the only political ideology left that embraces freedom, individuality, self-determination, personal responsibility. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You might want to start a thread explaining why you are a progressive.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Wow... what a pile of horse****.

Just because you use a bunch of quotes means little or nothing. Forget the Koch brothers, what makes you think they believe in libertarian ideals?

Personally I want you (and me)to be free. Free from nanny state big government, free to do as you choose as long as you do no harm to others.

Many people (you?) believe that we cannot survive without the nanny state. I'll simply disagree. "Progressive" and "Conservatives" are weak, lame big gov dependent serfs.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Libertarianism is such a load of BS. Its literally dumb.

Its highly selfish - its an old political philosophy that is resoundly individualist! regardless of its spin it comes back to the same old tripe..."what's in it for me myself and I, now leave me alone"

Unfortunately societies grow and they flourish and therefore the needs of its members must be met> However, the Libertarian Idiot does not like this. They oppose the government for interfering and wish to be once again left alone. However, the needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few deluded. The have a very naive view of life thinking that if left alone things will basically "just work out". Hmmmmm how nice that is in theory but in practice its stupid.

The only time Libertarianism would work would be if we went back to the time of the founding fathers.

To combat the government and the things Libertarians do not like does not require a change in political ideology but a more prominent use of the 2nd amendment!!

A useful and timely effort, which those who could most benefit by it will probably not read.

You are right. In America, and the rich world in general, most self-proclaimed libertarians are simply politically naive right-wing conservatives.

Libertarianism is, of course, as unworkable a programme as anarchy or socialism.

The only political philosophies that allow for the intractability of human nature are liberalism, capitalism and old-fashioned monarchy (with or without feudalism). The rest are just wishful thinking, and create untold misery whenever anyone is stupid enough to try to put them into practice.

Modern Libertarianism is very simple... It is synonymous with Classical Liberalism, which is most descriptive of most of the founders of America.

Yes an no. Depends on who you ask and when you ask them and where they live. I attempted to specify that I'm referring to the use of the term in the modern era in America. It's always tricky when trying to categorize ideologies and wade through the vagueries of common usages. I think a key distinction might be made that what people, including the Libertarian Party refer to when they say "Libertarianism" is heavily influenced by the Austrian School of Economics.

One could also argue that 20th century "Progressives" misappropriated the term "Progressive."

I'm a libertarian because it's the only political ideology left that embraces freedom, individuality, self-determination, personal responsibility

That's a statement of opinion that could be applied by adherents of any number of ideologies. I appreciate that you apparently believe those terms are expressly, exclusively and entirely embodied by your concept of what Libetarianism is but I disagree. Perhaps you would care to refute something that I've said?

Just because you use a bunch of quotes means little or nothing. Forget the Koch brothers, what makes you think they believe in libertarian ideals?

Personally I want you (and me)to be free. Free from nanny state big government, free to do as you choose as long as you do no harm to others.

Many people (you?) believe that we cannot survive without the nanny state. I'll simply disagree. "Progressive" and "Conservatives" are weak, lame big gov dependent serfs.

Are you not familiar with Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Ludwig Von Mises, etc? If their words are not important, then what is? What "Libertarian" means to you and you alone?

Do you deny the influence of the Koch brothers in the "Libertarian movement" in the U.S. starting in the 70's and continuing through to this day? I agree that they are not true believers, this should be concerning to anyone else identifying as a "Libertarian."

I want us to be free too, I just don't feel that the FAA is doing more harm to my liberty than good for my safety. I'd rather have the EPA imposing profit cutting regulations on Georgia Pacific than Georgia Pacific denying me my freedom to drink the water from my well. I also don't believe that the solution is to replace all functions of government with privatization, do you? Do you want private ownership of roads and waterways? How would that increase your freedom? Please explain.

a reply to: Astyanax

A useful and timely effort, which those who could most benefit by it will probably not read.

Thank you. Unfortunately, many people are so highly susceptible to the language used in propaganda that they immediately believe that they know everything they need to know.

Libertarian is the nearest to my ideology.

I believe government to be a rabid dog, that should be kept at bay by the leash of a tight budget, and a citizenry willing to beat it down when it gets out of line.

That less government is always preferable to more, however Man is only civil as long as the threat of force is there, it is why government is even needed.

The only reason I am not a True Anarchist is I am not that optimistic about my fellow man.

Apparently the thought of personal freedom scares even Libertarians enough to outright not call for full anarchy, but just shy of it.

Frankly, we tried Big government and Two parties, its not working out...

So maybe a little Personal Liberty, and Less Gov, is just crazy enough to work, Libs are the only thing I see even coming near that.

Problem with libertarianism is they desire to basically remove all governmental oversight and unleash pure capitalism, without seeming to understand that capitalism is no longer silk trade routes and mom/pop shops.
A few giant megacorps would within a few decades create a stranglehold on all wealth and resources in the country. This would make only a small elite ruling class based on obscene wealth, and the rest of the gutter dwellers that have to live with almost nothing just to maintain a job being replaced daily by robots and foreign nations that will work for free (due to selling out long before we did). This world becomes little more than a plaything for the ruling wealth class.

There is a reason there is a commerce clause in the constitution if nothing else...its because even in the 18th century, the founders realized how unbridled greed would topple the whole republic state by state until the whole thing crashed down...this was before megacorps..or even before chains.

Well I am not a lib, dem, rep.. I am me, My ideologies are a derivative of The Constitution.. Anything after that I can care less.. Except the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve act.. Other than that I am fine..

I dont need a label to say what I believe.. screw labels... I am me and that is that.

a reply to: benrl

That less government is always preferable to more, however Man is only civil as long as the threat of force is there, it is why government is even needed.

The only reason I am not a True Anarchist is I am not that optimistic about my fellow man.

and there's the rub.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find people who would say they are in favor of having less liberty or a larger government.

One of the biggest problems I have with the American Libertarian movement is an extreme and unhealthy emphasis on replacing functions of government with privatization which to me is exchanging a government corrupted by the wealthy elite with corporations controlled by the wealthy elite and having no regulation to boot.

Does that sound like more freedom for you and me?

a reply to: theantediluvian

if the definition of an ideology is defined by those whom hold said ideology, then your only showing that your understanding of its definition is out dated, and that the new class of libertarians hold differing views then libertarianism used too, but that isnt uncommon, after all, democrats used to be pro segregation and slavery, ideologies change as people change.

it is very contradicting for you to tell people who label themselves as libertarians that they dont have the same beliefs as a libertarian. if they say they are libertarian then they are themselves in part defining what it means to be a libertarian. the beliefs of the collective whole is the definition of the movement, just look at Merriam Webster, its definitions and even spellings change with popular opinion, example, who hasnt heard that aint aint a word, well enough people used it that now it is, check a new dictionary, its there. and what those dictionaries said about libertarianism 50 years ago, is very likely to be different from what they will have to say today, as the individuals who are libertarian now have altered beliefs, as is their right.



also, on the topic of pro/anti establishment,

think of it this way, the purpose of government is obviously control, it is there as a tool for the people to control themselves, to bring order where there would (presumably) otherwise be chaos, government is literally a symptom of a species unable to control itself individually, so whats next? are we to try and find some form of government that can be our tool to control us for us forever? obviously if the idea of evolution is to improve upon the species then the ideal direction is toward self individual control, we must become a species that doesnt need a government, that is able to control and govern itself on an individual level, for if you cannot as a species control yourself on an individual level, then neither can you achieve a government that is able to control itself, hence corruption will be unavoidable, to aim in that direction of self governance and self control we must endevour forever to shrink government as much as we are able until such a time that it no longer exists and is not missed.

instead we see a growing government to the point that it now calls for global governance, we are not evolving so long as this maintains, and it wont maintain, this effort on the part of governments to grow and grow has always lead to destruction in one fashion or another and always has resulted eventually in the destruction of that government itself and all it had been trying to control, and from such fires whats born are new governments, once again as the people realize they are not ready to govern themselves they seek to create a tool that will do it for them, they start out fashioning this tool to do the job at a minimalist level so they can try and handle the rest on their own, hoping to adapt to mentality of not needing government, but times of weakness on part of the voters AND the rulers lead to bigger and bigger governments, cycle repeats.


i see nothing wrong with the image of libertarianism that you are defining in this thread (that is as far as no government goes), i just dont think humans are ready for it, that it would be chaos at first, that it is the ideal goal of our evolution, but it isnt something we can just dive right into without some major upset at such sudden change, i think we ought to be heading that direction though, rather then the opposite way as we are now, handing more and more control over our lives/economy/health/food/EVERYTHING to government.

a reply to: theantediluvian
You are lying. Greenspan is a registered Republican and always has been.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: theantediluvian
You are lying. Greenspan is a registered Republican and always has been.

In his book, The Age of Turbulence, Alan Greenspan himself as a lifelong libertarian Republican which is basically a libertarian who is in the Republican Party or votes with them. If that is confusing to you, ask yourself if you consider Ron Paul a Libertarian. He's been a member of the Republican Party for what? 25 or 26 years?

EDIT:

Here, this is from a WSJ article about his book.

Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

and here's an expert from an article in The Economist, also about his book, where they describe him as a lifelong Libertarian.

A LIFELONG libertarian, Alan Greenspan does not ordinarily advocate giving the government more power. But he does so in a new epilogue to the paperback edition of his memoir, parts of which were made available to The Economist. The crisis of the past year has convinced him it is the lesser evil. Better someone else be in charge of bail-outs, he argues, than the Federal Reserve, which he led for 18 years.

The problem I see with this current American form of libertarianism, is that it concentrates on the state as the sole source intruding on ones freedoms. Ignoring the role of banks, corporations and the rich. In fact it gives these latter groups more freedoms to exploit the poor and vulnerable.

This kind of criticism is false, and reveals ignorance about the dynamics within a minarchist society.

Corporate monopolies are an abomination of the market caused by THIS system.
Let an army of small/middle class businesses stand up to them in a fair fight (by enabling middleclass businesses to compete with big corporations via equal opportunity = by leveling the playingfield) and they will win against them with better products for affordable prices. This is no theory, we know this to be true.

A minarchistic state is also not a right-free zone (quite the opposite).
It would still have laws, executive and legislative governmental branches, and would still provide protection for the people, both domestic and to the outside.

And last, several non-governmental institutions we know of now would still be compatible and could function in a minarchistic society aswell, like Unions (but the German kind, not your weird corrupt US kind), to name one example for the employees' side.

You appear to be unable to discern the difference between Libertarian and libertarian. Is this out of ignorance or intentional deception?

A Libetarian ran the Fed from 1987 to 2006 I bring this up because a lot of "Libertarians," particularly Paulites and Ron Paul himself, rant on and on about the Fed. I actually agree but what I'd like to point out is that Alan Greenspan has always described himself as a lifelong Libertarian

Greenspan has never referred to himself as a lifelong Libertarian, however he has referred to himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican." Huge difference.

lib·er·tar·i·an noun ˌli-bər-ˈter-ē-ən, -ˈte-rē-
: a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government


Full Definition of LIBERTARIAN

1
: an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2
a : a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
— libertarian adjective
— lib·er·tar·i·an·ism noun

If you asked most people if they advocate the doctrine of free will or if they upheld the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action, I am sure they would agree. That would make most people libertarians but not necessarily Libertarians.