Politics for Dummies! What is a Libertarian??

I hear/see this WAY TO MUCH .. a complete raping of what Libertarian ideologies REALLY ARE.

There is no hybrid Libertarianism .. it is essentially straight forward.

You can say that Libertarianism relating to a small government atmosphere as far as the Federal Government is concerned can be applied to different ideologies.. but it in no way makes said ideologies Libertarian ideologies.

For instance:

Socialist Libertarianism. Impossible.

The idea behind Socialist Libertarianism is that the Government would carry on Federally sanctioned and funded programs of welfare, dependance, and provision. All the while, it would remain out of the every day lives of the individual. Novel idea. It is the Anti Libertarianism.

LIBERTARIANISM IS NOT THE PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS FROM GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

In fact, any honest Libertarian will tell you it is entirely up to the STATES to decide any social program, any interpretation of the constitution, any creation of law. All dependent on the PEOPLE.

Goal of Libertarianism?

Libertarians believe that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has no right to dictate morality to the states, that the Federal Government has no right to take funds from the general populace to support massive government sponsored welfare programs.

In fact, the biggest point of Libertarianism is, unlike what so many Ron Paul fanatics and Infowar Maniacs will tell you in error, is that the Federal Government is to NEVER PARTAKE IN WELFARE PROGRAMS.

Ever.

Welfare? Get rid of it. health care? Not on a Federal Level. Any form of organization not constructed specifically to defend our borders, perpetuate war, or aid in our defense or intelligence is deemed to be excess and is to be trimmed away.

ALL welfare budgets are to be LOCALIZED BY STATE.

The people of Maine should not support the Socialist ideologies of California, as an example.

This is by far the biggest point of Libertarianism.

Libertarians are supposed to believe in Political issolation, so long as it is done responsibly (see Switzerland)

Libertarians are supposed to believe that standing armies and massive military budgets are dangerous and unneeded.

To be against Free Trade

To be against Corporate Corruption in the Government, yet hold that the Federal Government and the General economy are independent..

That you cannot tax the income of individuals to pay welfare to the general population.

It is impossible to be a Libertarian and a Socialist at the same time.. simply impossible. Libertarianism stands for change, an end to corruption and a return to the beliefs of our forefathers.. and many wish to rape these ideas with ignorance.

Keeping the Gov out of your life.. is a point of Libertarianism.. it's also a point of Traditional Conservatism.. and logical sense to most political ideologies.

But you cannot have Big brother in a small package. Doesn't work that way.

I have seen so many Ron Paul supports preach about how they where going to vote for Paul, vote for Change.. then turn around and vote for a Republican, or a Democrat .. it's mind boggling. Did the average Ron Paul supporter even know what he stood for? I have to assume not..

Libertarianism, as a political idea of freedom can be attached in pieces to thousands of belief systems. But there is only one American Libertarian Party. And to support a Libertarian, and a Socialist, in the context of it's use is so far opposite on the political spectrum of right vs. left, it certainly makes one wonder where we receive political education. Apparently, from Youtube nowadays.



Your Jeffersonian, or your not.

Please. Stop hijacking my Party's name.

PS>



en.wikipedia.org...

Use the name. Don't support the party members. Any self respecting Libertarian will agree, nothing in that definition is Libertarian in nature.

Hear Hear!

Truth be known, the media has skewed the lines of identity. Not just the political or social, but every line of our society and history have had a change in perception. That is an issue, not being able to determine the difference between how things are perceived and the reality of it all.

People these days don't want to know the reality of the world around them, so they have a self induced ignorant perception.

WELL PUT!

If people stuck to their convictions, and did not allow these talking heads to sway our beliefs.. we really could see change.

Instead the Government waives us off calling us ignorant.. Conservative parties acting like Socialist or Fascist.. party line believers just take their word for it "we didn't want to.. but we have to" ..

That's what it comes down to, conviction. People need to stop trying to put words together like "Socialist Libertarianism" to passify their misunderstanding. Which by the way.. from it's definition, is nothing more then Communism without Totalitarianism .. *sigh* ..

Its like advisor said. Good luck trying to teach discernment to a society that bases its thinking on catch-phrases and slogans without knowing the meaning behind the words and titles.

Expect esteemed ATS-member Lucid Lunacy to show up here claiming he is a "socialist Libertarian", which I agree is a contradiction.

Us Libertarians are however, quite liberal-minded.

Truth is, no true conspiracy-theorist or metaphysicist who knows his stuff can be either left or right wing. Rather than being at those two sides of the pyramid, he is at its peak. In this sense I disagree with your notion (posted here and there) that Libertarianism is "extreme right wing". I see it as something beyond that dichotomy yet at the same time integrating it.




[edit on 1-12-2008 by Skyfloating]

Libertarianism, the first step to plutocracy. They don't even need government to coerce people, because starvation is motivation enough. If you allow unlimited accumulation of wealth, you allow unlimited accumulation of power.

I quite agree Sky.. we are very "Liberal" in the sense of personal freedoms. I support gay marriage, allowing certain drugs, abortion, and several other beliefs that a Social Conservative would banish me to Hell for.

But I don't believe it's my right to create a majority and suppress the other 49% with. in My LOCALITY, I support it, but damn the day the Federal Government believes it holds supreme Patriarch rights to preach morality. If ever there was a contradiction.

Merle8



Allow the control and restriction. What next. Gov telling me what kind of shoes I can wear, car I can drive, color of my one piece Fascist jump suit I can wear to my Gov appointed job?

Not as big of a stretch as you think.

The tennents of Libertarianism are the only true way to prevent slavery. Our Constitution is a Libertarian document. Our government has ignored this fact in denying the Republic that the document founded. It is the only way to govern. It is the only way to truely be an American!
Zindo

Well put my friend. Until the media gives the Libertarian party a fair shake nothing will change. If people understood that Republicans are not conservatives they wouldnt vote for them. But because there is not the voice of a true Libertarian (and Im not talking Bob Barr either) people dont understand that they are being hoodwinked. The two party crime family is dug in well and with all the crap going on with the bailouts, the warfare/welfare state, & all the other big government that never seems to change it becomes obvious. Sadly we are a nation of sheep. We can keep fighting the good fight and one day people will see the big picture.

I don't believe Libertarians are against free trade, nor are they particularly for nationalism, or national economic policy.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by Rockpuck

---

Rockpuck, I agree 100% with everything you posted except the...



Libertarians do not like managed trade. But are for 100% free trade so long as GOVERNMENT is not involved. For example, if I have a company that makes hats here in the U.S. and I decide to sell my goods to the people in Thailand, I should not have to pay either licensing fees or any other type of fees or face regulations by either the U.S. government or that of the Thailand government. Any of these types of regulations or restrictions is hampering my business and thus goes against the libertarian principals of being left alone. Treaties like Nafta or organizations like the NWO have nothing to do with free trade. They are government written legislation that dictate on behalf of BIG BUSINESS; of whom shall benefit and who shall not at the expense of competition. These regulations have nothing to do with free trade, but rather government getting its share of the action at the expense of the consumer and businessmen. Free Trade requires "zero" participation by any government, no paper written, nothing. Nothing need be written to be told I'm "free" to sell my goods anywhere...and even if it were the case, that something be needed written, it would only require one sentence, unlike the hundreds of pages written in the NAFTA treaty.

I'd also like to point out that your views for the most part seem to be congruent with that of Ron Paul. As cognoscente has pointed out I would say your overall views lean more towards peleoconservativism. In either case, I like what you have to say.





[edit on 2-12-2008 by Gateway]

Wait till they found out that Libertarianism is anti-democratic, that'll really shake them up.

Most people dont even know the difference between a democracy and a republic.

He there RockPunk,

I couldn't help it notice that you were talking about :

"I hear/see this WAY TO MUCH .. a complete raping of what Libertarian ideologies REALLY ARE."

And them stated :

"Socialist Libertarianism. Impossible."

I really hope you weren't refering to a thread started a couple of weeks ago...I want socialism, in witch i said a few times that we in the Netherlands have a social-liberalist goverment. (which is very much possible!!!)

I've got to be honest here and tell you that i couldn't find the difference between liberalism and libertarianism. (i fact wiki doesn't even seem to know Libertarianism.... )

Knowing the American system is completly different from ours could you please explain it a little bit more cause i'd love to learn.......

Oh....and Skyfloating

Republic, Authority is derived through the election, by the people, of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude
toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangers of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment and progress.
- U. S. Army training manual, 1928

Democracy, a government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meetings or any form of direct expression, which results in mobocracy.
Attitude towards property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude towards the law is that the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license,agitation, discontent, and anarchy."
- U. S. Army training manual, 1928.

Now everybody knows........

No, this thread nor any comments reflect on that thread. Never seen that thread quite honestly.

It was a response to a quote along the lines of "I supported Paul in the primaries, and voted for Obama in the election" .. To which I was utterly perplexed as to how one could have a 360º change in political ideologies in such a short time frame.

By the way. The States are Democratic, the Federal Government is a Republic.

For instance. Citizens do not elect the President. States do.

(ps read the wiki link to "social liberalism" and you will see a Marxist definition, just trying to prevent tyranny all the while. Nothing to do with Libertarianism (Liber is simply Freedom from Latin) which is how it gets connected to all these ideologies and leads to misunderstandings as to what a Libertarian from the Libertarian Party is.

PSS .. The reason many Libertarians are against Free Trade is that under strict Libertarian Rule, states would consume most of the taxation, where as a Value Added Tax from goods (VAT) would be the main source of income for the Federal Government (Equality Tax) and Tariffs would help with revenue. Wouldn't work in America, all we do is consume. Which would increase VAT revenue. You get the picture.

Thank you very much for that very clear explanation....

But if i understand your OP correctly would it not be much better to get rid of Federal Government all together and make each state it's own "country" with it's own laws, budget etc....

Just some very confused european asking some dumb questions ,i guess

Each State (and the Common Wealths as not all 50 states are actually states) are their own country.

Each state (and common wealth) has their very own Legal System. Budget. Tax system. GDP. CONSTITUTION. And 3 Branch Government much like the Federal Government does. (except I think it is one of the northern plain states as a different Legislative set up and is not bicameral)

The US Federal Government is a Union, and it is the body that over sees standardized laws over the entire union .. most of which impede on states rights to self determination.

This is why some Americans fear the European Union .. It will rape your countries much like the Fed did to ours.

I can understand that!!! exept for the dutch and the irish. I believe they have always been to liberal/stubborn to be "controlled" by any goverment.

It's just that these "federal goverments" don't mess with "local" laws and peoples freedom (at first) and only try to create a universal monetary system etc. but slowly and steadely enforce more and more upon the people. It's being done so slowly we don't notice and every time we give up a little bit more of our freedom.

the Neterlands once had a very (very,very) liberal point of view on drugs but under pressure of the EU we now are going to change this policy......

I hope we catch on in time to be able to stop it...........

I don't want to be a prick, but by the very way you posed this statement, neither do you. The basic terms themselves say very little of either systems' internal operations. A Republic is a governmental entity, which derives its power from the majority of its citizenry. A Monarchy is the opposite. Democracy is simply a term, which describes a system of power distribution, whether it is used within the context of governance of a republican state or in the structure of a debate, or for purposes of a software code. It is entirely irrelevant unless directly applied. Democracy is the principle behind the vote, behind equal rights beneath the law (we call this isonomia), and it ensures the least violent transition of power between governments. How we manage to accomplish all this is through an organization of elected representatives, which we call the "Republican system of government". Do not confuse this with the concept of the "Republic". What this accomplishes is a reduction in the number of voices and interests, increasing efficiency and decreasing corruption. With the separation of duties, we increase the overall liberty of society.

OperationMindcrime, what you described is a Social or Direct Democracy, the example used by the Founding Fathers for purposes of empirical study. It was their highly pessimistic opinion regarding the Direct Democracy, which provided the foundation for the Republican inspired system of governance. No modern nation would ever consider the former. It would be akin to ancient tribalism, so I don't see why anyone would use that model unless it were used simply as a hypothetical framework for some type of political science study. The only real difference between what we have today and what was used by the ancient Greeks is a more narrowed down, organized, and hierarchical system. The fewer positions means there is more demand for them, meaning we usually end up with people that are better qualified for the job. Average citizens don't hold public office. Instead, we have specialized citizens taking those positions, who are more often than not fairly well studied in political science and law.

No one doubts that the Republic is the entity, which is most proficient in its ability to provide the most important Democratic qualities including life, liberty and happiness to its citizenry. A Constitutional Monarchy can work equally as well. But a Monarchy, a Dictatorship, or an Oligarchy would never work.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by cognoscente]

Mind explaining? ..... because there is a difference???

reply to post by Rockpuck

---

Hmmmm 'Libertarian Socialism' for dummies...



(bolding by me)
Source

Where does it mention having a federal government of ANY kind is required for socialism?

Why is it people mistakenly consider socialism totalitarianism when it requires NO governing authority?

Never trust an 'authority' figure who claims to bring you liberty, or socialism.

If you insist I know nothing about the difference

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Skyfloating]