Politics for Dummies! What is a Libertarian??, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times
Topic started on 1-12-2008 @ 06:32 PM by Rockpuck
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>

Libertarian socialism

Main article: Libertarian socialism

Libertarian socialism aims to create a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.[65]

This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of "authoritarian" institutions such as an individual's right to own private property,[66] in order that direct control of the means of production and resources will be gained by the working class and society as a whole.

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include: most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism,[67] social ecology,[68] and council communism[69] (or even communism itself, as it is described by Karl Marx or Lenin in a further stage of development of socialism).


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.


reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 12:24 AM by Gateway
reply to post by Rockpuck



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


To be against Free Trade


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]


reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 02:33 PM by operation mindcrime
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........


reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 09:25 PM by cognoscente
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Most people dont even know the difference between a democracy and a republic.


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]


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 12:57 AM by ANOK
reply to post by Rockpuck



Hmmmm 'Libertarian Socialism' for dummies...

Why "Libertarian"?

It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less split down the middle.)

There was also a movement called "Propaganda by deed", around the late 1800's to early 1900's, in which some anarchists (Such as the Italian Anarchist Luigi Galleani (1861-1931)), believed that violence was the best strategy for opposing the state. This proved a disaster, alienating anarchists from the general population and exposing them to negative characterizations by the press... the "bomb-toting anarchist" is for the most part a creation of the corporate media- before this stigma anarchism was recognized as an anti-authoritarian socialist movement.

Many anarchist groups and publications used the word "libertarian" instead of "anarchist" to avoid state repression and the negative association of the former term. Libertarian Socialism differentiates itself from "Anarchy" as a movement only in that it specifically focuses on working class organisation and education in order to achieve human emancipation from the fetters of capitalism.


Why "Socialism"?

Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.
(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.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



On why America is in denial and Ron Paul will not be elected
  Posted 18 days ago with 21 member flags
Study says racists and conservatives are dumb
  Posted 8 days ago with 16 member flags
Is ‘anti-Canadianism’ the new ‘anti-Americanism?’
  Posted 17 days ago with 8 member flags
Clarification on the definition of "natural born citizen"
  Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags