What we love about Conservatives getting voted into office:

* More self-responsibility, more focus on inner values, more straight-talk, more opportunity for individual prosperity, more strength, smaller government, less "tyranny-of-the-majority", more vision.

What we hate about Conservatives getting voted into office:

* More war, more religious bigotry, more machismo, more rigidity.

These patterns can easily be observed in governments around the world.

I am going to take issue with a few things you posted earlier as 'self-evident' and/or being an obvious given. I do not think that one of the benefits of conservatives being voted into office was demonstrated by the last conservative administration in the US. Not one. Do you?

This is where I struggle to understand the ideology of Libertarianism as a political movement, as it appears to me to be a perpetually moving target with very disparate groups attaching the moniker to themselves -- and I think any number of Threads here will attest to that. The one consistent baseline I do see is that 'conservative at its best' governing is more representative of the core Libertarian ideologies than 'Liberal at its best'.

So, if the conservative governing prinicapls are no longer applicable to the conservative movement -- Barry Goldwater would have been well left of Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Obama -- and there appears to be no cohesiveness to the Libertarian Party as a political movement, esp. if the pro aspects of conservatism are taken out of the equation, what are we doing here?

There is a tendency for the defintion of Libertarianism to get whittled down to bumper-stickers, as exampled, that at best speak to a personal independnce motto, but without a platform on which a third-party could be built.

Do you, SF or anyone else, see the definition as strictly a personal label and have no expectations for it politcally? If not, what is the plan? And how could so many people with such varied POV's of 'right and wrong' be persuaded to get into one tent?

TWISI

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
I am going to take issue with a few things you posted earlier as 'self-evident' and/or being an obvious given. I do not think that one of the benefits of conservatives being voted into office was demonstrated by the last conservative administration in the US. Not one. Do you?

The last one happened to be weak and driven by a Bush-Dynasty agenda. I did not vote for them.

This is where I struggle to understand the ideology of Libertarianism as a political movement, as it appears to me to be a perpetually moving target with very disparate groups attaching the moniker to themselves -- and I think any number of Threads here will attest to that. The one consistent baseline I do see is that 'conservative at its best' governing is more representative of the core Libertarian ideologies than 'Liberal at its best'.

This is an important statement because the status quo tries to paint us as "not having a position" - just because we dont have an either fully left-wing or fully right-wing position.

There are some clearly defined positions that are shared by Libertarians of all colors: Personal Liberty and Personal Responsibility for example. A great majority of Libertarians also share an enjoyment of Capitalism or the stance that Drugs need to be Legalized (those are only two examples).

The common thread is anti-authoritarian.

Do you, SF or anyone else, see the definition as strictly a personal label and have no expectations for it politcally? If not, what is the plan? And how could so many people with such varied POV's of 'right and wrong' be persuaded to get into one tent?

I've avoided topics Libertarians disagree on among each other and instead focussed on stuff most agree on and have clearly outlined them in the OP.

I understand we are perceived as "a loose group of many different opinions" but its not so.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Why most Libertarians oppose the current "Bailouts"

...is because giving more credit to solve debt is no solution at all. It never was. It never will be. For anyone.

The left says to offer social freedom, with economic government. The right says to offer economic freedom, with social government. In the end, the left and right are just 2 sides of the authoritarian party, which has done a great job at marginalizing the other true party - libertarian.

If you combine the freedoms both sides want, you get libertarian. If you combine the government both sides want, you get an authoritarian government.

The left points out the government the right wants, says it's evil while selling the "freedom" side of them. And the right points out the government the left wants, while selling economic freedom. Of course, in reality neither truly offers any real freedom, but that is how it is sold.

Thus we get the "lesser of 2 evils". Still evil though.

Now, the left and right keep switching places, back and forth, back and forth. But do the freedoms of each party stay? No. What does stay is the programs and governments each wants. And when you combine the government both sides want, you get exactly what we have now, an authoritarian government.

Thus why "3rd parties" and anyone who dares suggest freedom in both areas is marginalized and called names. Because that is the game.

Did GWB get rid of any programs that Clinton put into place? No, he extended and put more money into them. Did Obama get rid of the things GWB put into place like homeland security and all that? Nope, still got them and no plans to "change" either.

There is no left or right, there is only up and down. And the left and right parties in this country represent the down party, and the up party is considered kooks and so forth. I'd say the authoritarian party has been kicking the crap out of the other party for many many years now.

My score: Economic Left/Right: -7.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69
I'm ibertarian socialist, but I knew that already I guess. That's also libertarian right, it's not only rightists? I lean more towards anarcho-communism but a governing body, directly democratic, made of councils of workers is an alright system until things stabilise, as long as there are serious limits to their powers. Jumping directly to no government could be problematic as the world looks today, but government by the unqualified is the real problem. But I don't think anyone should get free fish, you should get according to contribution, meaning rich people are the hardest working while leechers will be the ones with least wealth. i don't believe in taxes because I don't believe in the monetary system at all. And in this society the difference in wealth would be totally justified and there would be no need to tax. I can't see how that's not fair. I like the anarcihst slogan "We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality".

Tought I might add this:
LIBERTARIAN: one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who believes in free will.

SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: a social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.


[edit on 1-4-2009 by Mudler]

Originally posted by David9176

I did this survey a few weeks ago.

We must think alike...because i was scored almost exactly where you are.

I don't remember the actual numbers...but i was 4 blocks down and just a tad to the right...barely.

S & F.

I can see our like-mindedness in your avatar. Im big on Constitution Support.

Originally posted by badmedia

Thus why "3rd parties" and anyone who dares suggest freedom in both areas is marginalized and called names. Because that is the game.

Did GWB get rid of any programs that Clinton put into place? No, he extended and put more money into them. Did Obama get rid of the things GWB put into place like homeland security and all that? Nope, still got them and no plans to "change" either.

There is no left or right, there is only up and down. And the left and right parties in this country represent the down party, and the up party is considered kooks and so forth. I'd say the authoritarian party has been kicking the crap out of the other party for many many years now.

Very well put. This mirrors Libertarian thought perfectly. Those two opposing parties are more alike than they will ever admit

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

My own result is Economic Left/Right: 1.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.33



I'm surprised by how far to the right my own little dot is. I expected it to have moved toward the liberal side since I last tested a year or so ago.

I do consider myself a Libertarian. I believe Libertarians need to be more forthright and realistic about the Libertarian view of social programs. I spend a good deal of time working within the private aid sector and I know that the potential for ideas and developments for the benefit of humanity are very much there--I just don't know if there is enough efficiency to care for people to the degree that they need (by this I do not mean handouts, but rather programs that enable people to help themselves and their fellow [wo]man). A common argument is that if the government would step back, the private sector would take the reins. This may be, but the private sector would first need a major overhaul. Are enough citizens ready to take on that responsibility?

Private initiatives are very often brilliant but lack exposure; they need this much more than they need government money thrown at them (which itself generally entails restrictions set by the government). That is a problem that can be solved if enough people put their heads together.

I cannot agree with the strict non-interventionism of many (perhaps most) Libertarians. I believe that humanitarian intervention in foreign affairs is rarely necessary, but it cannot be taken off the table.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
(Abortion) And begs me to ask the obvious question of who would be in charge of making those decisions on a case by case basis?

What I meant to say by that is that most things in life are not black or white but gray. And when some religious nut categorically denies abortion...even in the case of rape...he is not operating from objective thought and interest of the people but from bigotry. Likewise, when a staunch "womens rights activist" advocates Abortion-galore its usually also based on ideology rather than the individual case.

That said, its an ambivalent area. We, as a nation, have to be able to bear ambivalence and ongoing discussion instead of the "one-size-fits-all" laws the two parties keep trying to pass.

I personally dont have a solution to this issue. Some might say this is "vague", I simply say its honest.

(Drugs) Is that your brand of Libertarianism, or do you really believe that is a major unifying factor for most?

The very Definition of Libertarianism is "free personal choice on everything"...which is why most Libertarians left and right share this stance on the topic.

Again, who will be deciding this if not the government? And if the answer is a smaller government, one can logically assume that it is then going to constently end up in the judical branches jurisdiction in a BIG WAY, expanding government.

From a Libertarian perspective "smaller government" ALSO means more localized governments...each being allowed their own laws which can be at odds with the laws of other states.

I'd have no problem if Texas chooses to have very strict immigration laws while New York chooses to have very loose ones.

From my perspective these are detail-issues that should be decided not by some all-powerful, centralized government but from state to state. So there, thats some Libertarian thinking for you.

I am playing devil's advocate here because I personally would like to be part of a third party solution, but it needs to be viable and cohesive.

Thats fine. Lots of good points you are making.

I don't think that the link in your sig (the brain diag. pg. 1) is representative of anything other than narrow judgements and is not defining Libertarianism, but instead snidely 'labeling' other cliche POV's.

Making fun of the two ruling parties is part of it as long as we make up only 2% of the votership is part of it.

Of course, some Libertarians tendency to do nothing other than bash the current system is not helpful in the long run.

Well, I never really cared about the political terms. I believe what I believe and if you believe something different, that's fine to...I believe in equality and fairness for all... and then a wild chart appears.

STATES RIGHTS/LAWS: supercede Federal, with what exceptions where? i.e. civil rights. Is that plausible?

I'd have no problem if Texas chooses to have very strict immigration laws while New York chooses to have very loose ones.

What if Texas outlaws abortion? Is that fine with you too? Where does that leave an impoverished pregnant teenage girl in Midland? How about sodomy laws, which leads to persecution of homosexuals?

There is a complexity here that I think is not addresses by the diaspora of Libertarians, hence you are only 2%.

FLAT TAX: I am assuming this is Federal, we still have various state taxes that would need to be increased, one assumes, as State Gov. would need to logically expand.

DRAMATIC REDUCTION OF SIZE OF FEDERAL GOV. - Yahoo!

But how does any of this come about under Libertarianism when there is no unity outside of personal ideology of independence and anti-authoritian attitudes which is so subjective?

Perhaps it is possible that the current 'secession' of the 20-odd states that is happening right now could be a catalyst for a viable third-party movement.

Oh well, I guess I knew this.
Seems like Socialist Libertarians are being drawn to this thread.
Anyone out there scoring in a mole conservative fashion?

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.72

Just slightly to the economic right of The Dali Lama.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Why most Libertarians oppose the current "Bailouts"

...is because giving more credit to solve debt is no solution at all. It never was. It never will be. For anyone.

That's the thing. The liberals (and some fake conservatives) actually believe in using credit to solve debt and here's why:

Eventually what happens with all of this spending is inflation will strike, and it will strike hard. So let's say we have a $5T budget, and we owe China $1T. When inflation hits hard, our money becomes watered down to the point that we all of a sudden have let's say a $10T budget, without gaining any actual wealth. The key (in their minds) is that the debt stays at $1T despite the inflation, since the US dollar is still the world standard. So, in effect, by spending their brains out, they have shrunk their debt, but of course at our (and the world's) expense.

As you pointed out, this is an inherently flawed theory and does not/will not work, but their theory of debt spending is to cause inflation so that you can spend like nuts and then pay it off with funny money. The big problem will arise when the US dollar no longer is the world standard as it has been since 1971, then we will be in big trouble and this theory will implode.


BTW, this is an awesome thread, sky. I recently became 100% libertarian and have been turning friends left and right. I really think Ron Paul will have a legit chance in 2012, if things keep up this way. Let's just hope people listen this time!