About Libertarians

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I consider myself to have libertarian views on most topics. In case you haven't seen this, you can take a short quiz which will give you an idea of where you fall with your political ideologies: www.theadvocates.org...

In case anyone is interested
, here is how I come out on that quiz:



Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%
According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is...LIBERTARIAN
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Though I agree with the futility or absurdity of "parties", I am a registered Libertarian to make a explicit statement of sorts. The statement being that I refuse to paint myself as either Red or Blue. I do realize the potential double standard in denouncing political parties, when I myself am affiliated with one.

The basic description of Libertarian politics is that they are "fiscally conservative, but socially liberal". This means maximum civil and personal liberty (and thus, small Government), Constitution based laws, the removal of corporate person-hood, the removal of tax loopholes, etc.

Basically, the America America was when it first started.

The Libertarian naysayers sometimes equate it to the Philosophies or Ayn Rand, and use that association to somehow paint the aims of the Party in a negative light.
edit on 19-2-2013 by inivux because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I consider myself fairly libertarian and I've voted libertarian at one or time or another.

The libertarian free market ideology is often seen as one that would give corporations free reign to be as evil as possible. The libertarian would argue that it is a personal responsibility to use your money only to reward business that corresponds to your personal values. You would theoretically not reward said evil business with your money because you're voting with your wallet, as they say. It seems impossible now only because of government-subsidized monopoly.

Libertarianism doesn't have to be about anarchy, I for one embrace certain forms of socialism, housing projects, maternity leave, disability, etc. For me it's more about social politics; it's more about letting people do as they choose. For example, were I president and abortion was an issue, I would say I am pro-choice, but I wouldn't force large areas of the country that are against it to accept it. I'd let them outlaw it and people who were pro-choice could leave.

The 10th amendment was designed so that the US could be a union of largely similar but somewhat diverse communities and when one felt out of place in one region they could move to where others think like them. Frankly, if 51% of a community said all brown haired children must be put in special ed classes, it is undemocratic not to put brown haired children in special ed classes in that community. That's why social mobility and the 10th amendment were meant to coexist. The problem is today we have neither social mobility nor the 10th amendment, and no, the 10th amendment does not still exist, it was permanently nullified during the Civil War. Freeing the slaves, right thing to do; destroy States' Rights and centralize power? Wrong thing to do.

Sorry to rant, but libertarianism has gotten a lot of bad press since the media destroyed the Ron Paul run.
edit on 19-2-2013 by guanyu because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-2-2013 by guanyu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
As far as NAFTA goes. Here is what Ron Paul had to say about it on Lou Dobbs. Its likely not official libertarian platform. But, his words do carry quite a bit of weight..




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Forget the pseudo libertarians become a real libertarian...


As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations.

Unfortunately, in the United States the term “libertarian” has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of “free-market” capitalism. That defenders of the hierarchy associated with private property seek to associate the term “libertarian” for their authoritarian system is both unfortunate and somewhat unbelievable to any genuine libertarian. Equally unfortunately, thanks to the power of money and the relative small size of the anarchist movement in America, this appropriation of the term has become, to a large extent, the default meaning there. Somewhat ironically, this results in some right-wing “libertarians” complaining that we genuine libertarians have “stolen” their name in order to associate our socialist ideas with it!


150 years of Libertarian

The "libertarian" party is far from libertarian, it is simply another right wing appropriation of a left wing term in another attempt to sell capitalism as freedom.

Capitalism is capitalism, it was formed in corruption, and will always be corrupt. Just the very basic process of capitalism is exploitative, the hiring of labour, who are paid for less than they produce. In a truly libertarian society workers would own what they produce, and earn the full fruits of their labour.

Capitalism will always be privilege for the few, and struggle for the rest of us. The class system came with capitalism, the state we have came with capitalism, poverty came with capitalism, property crime came with capitalism, war, pollution, the breakdown of society...

Capitalism is an authoritative economic system, and is not compatible with liberty. Liberty for the few is not liberty for all.


edit on 2/19/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I was wondering when someone was going to say exactly what you said.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Without derailing the thread into a discussion of capitalism, I'm not so convinced the system in itself is inherently evil. I thought I was all for the commune system until I tried it out, and there truly are freeloaders who will not lift a finger if they don't have to. I believe in meritocracy. I'm not so sure the price tag is evil as the practice of putting a price tag on anything and everything. There are other issues. Should a person own a large chunk of a nation's mineral reserves because their family bought a previously worthless swath of land later found to contain 70% of that nation's iron? (As a random example.) That and fractional reserve banking, fiat currency, et al.

I think we should have basic housing, basic medical care, etc. but it doesn't have to be great. Let social housing be like an Amish farm. Why provide power? Why provide running taps? My family had a cabin where you pumped well water outside and poured a bucket of it into the toilet to flush. This was our vacation home. Public housing can be bare essentials, the social safety network can be minimal, but I do think it should exist. I don't think people should be left to die on the roadside as soon as they can't produce meaningful work. Some are injured, some are infirm, some are born incapable, etc.

I just can't be full communist after doing a bunch of communists' dishes for two years.
edit on 19-2-2013 by guanyu because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-2-2013 by guanyu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by guanyu
 


But the alternative to capitalism is not the "commune system".

Worker ownership (common ownership) is, whatever you want to call it, socialism, communism, free association.

That can be anything from collectivised worker owned industries, to an individual working their own plot of land.
In a sense the means to produce are "communally" owned, but what you produce is yours, you receive the full fruits of your labour, nothing is taken by a private owners for their profit (surplus value).

It has nothing to do with how you live, just who owns the means of production. If a community wants to live communally that would be up to them. Once the means to produce are owned in common, we would not be restricted to one social norm. National politics would be replaced by localised voluntary, temporary, committees formed to solve problems. If you don't want to be part of a community, commune, whatever, you would be able to work a plot of land, as land laws would revert back to common law.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTsiyr
I was wondering when someone was going to say exactly what you said.


Well someone has to deny ignorance.




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by guanyu
 


But the alternative to capitalism is not the "commune system".

True, my intent was not to over-simplify. I just wanted to throw my two cents in about how what we have now called "capitalism" doesn't necessarily define capitalism and how I think the idea of money is mishandled and doesn't necessarily represent a threat to freedom so long as money fairly and honestly represents "a unit of goods" in what essentially remains a barter economy. It's about where our money comes from (lent by banks to nations) and how it is backed by illusion (fiat currency) that is the problem, not money itself, in my opinion. But I'm repeating myself.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by guanyu
True, my intent was not to over-simplify. I just wanted to throw my two cents in about how what we have now called "capitalism" doesn't necessarily define capitalism and how I think the idea of money is mishandled and doesn't necessarily represent a threat to freedom so long as money fairly and honestly represents "a unit of goods" in what essentially remains a barter economy. It's about where our money comes from (lent by banks to nations) and how it is backed by illusion (fiat currency) that is the problem, not money itself, in my opinion. But I'm repeating myself.


Money is not really the problem at all, it's ownership of the means to produce. In the case of capitalism it is a minority class of private owners who monopolise the means to produce, in order to live a privileged lifestyle from the labour of others.

Why should one minority class of people have the right, given by the state, to do that?

Money is just the tool they use to make sure those at the top stay at the top, and those at the bottom stay at the bottom. Money was used in a different way before capitalism. No one had a lot of money, even the land owners, because there was no 'surplus value' until capitalism, and the hourly wage system.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
Then vote for the US communist party


You would be wrong about at least this one, I assume based on the typical misunderstanding of what communism is.


Until we win enough support to change the system, communists call for radical reforms under capitalism. We call for nationalization of the banks, railroads, and industries like steel and auto. Everyone who wants to work should be guaranteed a job or get unemployment payments until she/he can find a job. We say put the unemployed to work at union wages on massive public works programs to rebuild our cities, provide affordable housing for the homeless, build mass transit, and clean up the environment!


cpusa.org...

Classic Marxism, the nationalisation of industry is a temporary state in order to make the change from capitalist economy to a socialist economy.

It is not the centralized totalitarian state the right wing have made you think it is. It is what Britain did after WWII to get it's economy working again. It was only in the 80's when most those companies started being privatised.

Category:Former nationalised industries of the United Kingdom

If Britain had not nationalised it's industry it would never have recovered from WWII. It obviously wasn't done with the intent of becoming socialist, but it shows it isn't the totalitarian centralised system you think it is. It can be, but it doesn't have to be, capitalism can have totalitarian centralised state also.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Lot of information to digest, I appreciate everyone's input ...

One question I didn't ask was what are the libertarians views on American money, should it be government controlled like it was at the birth of the nation or privately controlled like we have now and lastly the view on the federal reserve?

I can understand the Union issue, freedom of association. The abortion issue is deeper than I first realized, I understand the freedom of choice although I still wonder who exactly makes that choice and first I believed a woman would, until a woman questioned me on what choice the father has or even the unborn child ... I believe there is more to it and no easy answer.

I have a big problem with the Libertarian view on free trade, in theory it is a great idea but in practice it puts American workers at a disadvantage.

Maybe if everyone outside the United States who makes products sold here worked at our minimum wage or followed some sort of competitive wage rule we would be able to compete but as it is they don't and jobs are sent where labor is cheapest and sold here for top dollar.

If I am not mistaken the revolutionary war started, more or less, over the same thing. Without getting into specifics of taxation basically the colonies goods were being undercut by cheaper imported goods in an attempt to wreck the colonies economy, how are these times and free trade any different?

I understand the idea of minimal government and like the idea but our founders fought the banks and fought against cheap imported goods ... If Libertarians embrace these ideas then I do not believe they are the same libertarians that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were.

And maybe this isn't the political party I was hoping it was ...



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Unfortunately the libertarian party grew too influential, and the billionaires got involved. Now they try to make the party what they want it to be.

The fact of the matter is, economically, we must take responsibility for where our money goes.

I haven't shopped at Wal-Mart in over a decade. I don't buy products made outside of Western countries. Yeah occasionally we all have to buy certain things from slave countries, but that is only because our leaders have sold out our industries and brainwashed people into buying whatever's cheapest at their convenience, without thinking about it. Which is what shuttered our manufacturing. It wasn't that Western workers were too expensive, too entitled, blah blah blah. It's that the owners moved to cheaper pastures and encouraged their customers to buy away anyway. We stopped supporting our local industry, the owners stopped supporting our local industry, no surprise now, it's gone.

You pay extra so the money goes to a local business, which in turn helps pay local employees, who pay local taxes for local amenities, and in turn insert the money back into the local economy with their own purchases. As it is now, we are just throwing our money out of the country with every purchase we make. Our purchases largely support other economies, while the business collects a small profit margin and our government collects a pittance in sales' tax. That purchase helps reinforce the legitimacy of slavery around the world and reduce the local economy. It's gotta stop.

We have to, as consumers, in this modern age, eschew slave-made goods, not because we can find a better deal elsewhere, but because it makes the statement that we'd rather have pricier goods and a lower quality of life than have it on the backs of global slavery. At least I hope most libertarians would feel that way.

If there were a free market, it would be up to you to support companies that support their communities, and by extension allow the slave masters and thieves to go broke, regardless of their uncannily cheap products. Some products people don't even want any longer, there is practically zero industry for them, so the government heavily subsidizes them, and vast amounts of products no one wants are flooded into the market at bargain-basement prices, and so in turn they are purchased, only because the illusion is maintained that they're cheaper not because anybody really wanted them in the first place. Free market ideology aims to stop this practice of government-industry collusion.

I'm not sure I prescribe to the libertarian economic theory necessarily, but I do know that if people rewarded businesses for doing things other than making the most money on the cheapest product, businesses would become what we reward. If that's a high-paying, friendly work experience with good benefits, who cares if our businesses were competitive internationally with the slave traders? The people in those countries are slaves! As long as we support our local businesses they don't need international competitiveness. The global economy is moot when it comes to our individual communities. Globalism doesn't strengthen local communities, it only generates great personal wealth.

What we have now is a service economy that attempts to create just enough money that we can afford the slave merchandise. Our infrastructure crumbles and our balance sheets are red because all of our money is sent out of country; instead of investing in ourselves, we invest in sweatshops.
edit on 20-2-2013 by guanyu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by guanyu
 


I totally agree and someone mentioned earlier in the thread the same concept but unfortunately most people are going to go for the cheap goods, the deals, without a thought of where it came from, who was put out of work or how it hurts our economy.

I would like to see the view of the Libertarians to be against importing foreign goods that undercut American made goods. Just like the original libertarians ... I am all for free trade but not at the expense of our economy and the workers who support it.

I am old enough to remember watching jobs go south to be made for less and still sold here at the same price and workers put out of work so a business can make more profit and leave the workers left behind high and dry. In my mind that is just wrong.

If a company wants to move to Mexico fine, sell your products in Mexico but what is sold in the US should be made in the US, for it to be cheaper to move south of the border or across the world and import products back into the States and put American people out of work is just wrong.

Outsourcing only benefits the company, it does not benefit the people who lost their jobs or the consumer who is paying the same price for the product anyways and it hurts our economy ... As you can tell I am strongly against it.

Only problem is I do not see how something like this could be regulated with out government intervention, our forefathers, the original libertarians regulated it by going to war and creating a country.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Tazkven
 

Just remember that libertarianism is not lawlessness. The Constitution is libertarian in nature, not anarchic.

Tariffs and import fees would have to remain in effect, even in a libertarian government. A lot of government would, just not that which exists almost entirely to fix the game so to speak.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by guanyu

Just remember that libertarianism is not lawlessness. The Constitution is libertarian in nature, not anarchic.

Tariffs and import fees would have to remain in effect, even in a libertarian government. A lot of government would, just not that which exists almost entirely to fix the game so to speak.


Anarchism is not lawlessness either, and there is no such thing as a libertarian government, that would be an oxymoron.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by guanyu

Just remember that libertarianism is not lawlessness. The Constitution is libertarian in nature, not anarchic.

Tariffs and import fees would have to remain in effect, even in a libertarian government. A lot of government would, just not that which exists almost entirely to fix the game so to speak.


Anarchism is not lawlessness either, and there is no such thing as a libertarian government, that would be an oxymoron.

But this is why traditional political theory and clinging to nebulous terms will get us no where. Modern U.S. libertarians, as far as I can tell, don't want "no government," they do want a "libertarian government" so it can't be an oxymoron because it does exist, at least so far as the platform of the U.S. Libertarian Party.

Perhaps the term needs to be redefined? They (we) want an efficient government that stays where it's needed and butts out of where it's not. It's really that simple. Which, it should be said, doesn't necessarily reflect the current ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party which is currently being PsyOped and CoOpted out of existence. They tried to create the Tea Party, FOX claimed ownership. They tried to run Ron Paul, media ate him for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

I'd consider myself an Old Guard Libertarian, one that existed prior to the first election of Obama. I had to have been one of very few who was rooting for Badnarik in '04.

Again, efficient government that does what it should where it should, and absolutely nothing where it should not.
We have a great legal framework in America. Now make sure everyone complies with the law! No loopholes, tax evasions, injustice and all that bull. I think libertarians believe Constitutional USA is a great idea, it just hasn't really existed yet. Not without unspoken, or even freely spoken, hypocrisy.
edit on 20-2-2013 by guanyu because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-2-2013 by guanyu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Capitalism is not as monstrously authoritative if you don't give a private entity a monopoly on creating and then profiting from issuance of US currency. Ron Paul proposed multiple competing currencies. Maybe gold based US currency based on the model of the US constitution and bill of rights.

If capitalism is restricted by the constitution and bill of rights then its not as toxic as the fake rigged casino capitalism we have.
edit on 21-2-2013 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Isn't libertarian government just a ultra-small extremely restricted government.

US republicans pretend to be small government. They are big state corporatists just like the other gang the democrats.

Anarchism is just socialism without a government.





top topics
 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join