Full Version: Why I'm a Libertarian
Why I am a libertarian:
Philosophically: I believe your individual freedom should only be restricted to actions that are inherently harmful to others. I believe that the primary purpose of government is to protect life, liberty and property. I believe, as Walter Williams states, that taking money from one person, in the form of taxes, and giving it to another, in the form of benefits, is nothing more than legalized theft. I believe that capitalism and freedom are strongly linked. Societies which attack property rights are attacking a basic human freedom,for a man to use the proceeds of his labor as he sees fit. It is not a mere coincidence that societies that have attempted to eliminate private property have also abused the other liberties of it's citizens.
Pragmatically:The failures of government intervention
Welfare:
Societies that tax labor and wealth creation activities and subsidize the poor end up subsidizing sloth and punishing work and savings. Johnson's Great Society programs are responsible for much of the human misery in the USA today. Ironclad law in economics: subsidize something you get more of it. We subsidize illegitimate children, the result is more illegitimate children and the side effects of illegitimacy; crime and poverty.
Drug war:
Government has no legitimate concern with what a human puts in his own body. Drug prohibition has the same results as alcohol prohibition in the 20's and 30's: crime, harmful effects intensified in minority communities, and a causal disrespect for law. When drug laws are combined with welfare you actually end up subsidizing the income of many drug dealers.
Just say no to more government.
Philosophically: I believe your individual freedom should only be restricted to actions that are inherently harmful to others. I believe that the primary purpose of government is to protect life, liberty and property. I believe, as Walter Williams states, that taking money from one person, in the form of taxes, and giving it to another, in the form of benefits, is nothing more than legalized theft. I believe that capitalism and freedom are strongly linked. Societies which attack property rights are attacking a basic human freedom,for a man to use the proceeds of his labor as he sees fit. It is not a mere coincidence that societies that have attempted to eliminate private property have also abused the other liberties of it's citizens.
Pragmatically:The failures of government intervention
Welfare:
Societies that tax labor and wealth creation activities and subsidize the poor end up subsidizing sloth and punishing work and savings. Johnson's Great Society programs are responsible for much of the human misery in the USA today. Ironclad law in economics: subsidize something you get more of it. We subsidize illegitimate children, the result is more illegitimate children and the side effects of illegitimacy; crime and poverty.
Drug war:
Government has no legitimate concern with what a human puts in his own body. Drug prohibition has the same results as alcohol prohibition in the 20's and 30's: crime, harmful effects intensified in minority communities, and a causal disrespect for law. When drug laws are combined with welfare you actually end up subsidizing the income of many drug dealers.
Just say no to more government.
QUOTE
Hugo -Just say no to more government.
What's the difference between a Libertarian and an Anarchist? Neither apparently likes government.
There's quite a bit of difference between advocating a small government with a strictly limited role, and advocating no government at all. Anarchists are a subset: some anarchists are libertarians, but most libertarians are not anarchists, and the Libertarian Party is not anarchist.
True that both libertarians and anarchists are not overfond of government. The difference is that most libertarians see at least a minimal government as a necessary evil, and thus could be described as "minarchists", while anarchists consider government an unnecessary evil and want to abolish it entirely.
We'd better distinguish here between the libertarian moverment or ideology (which I expect I'll always be counted as part of, and I completely agree with Hugo's post above) and the Libertarian Party (and despite the Republican label in my party line, I've been an LP member since 1972 though I won't be renewing, mainly due to differences over foreign policy): ideologically, both minimal government people and anarchists, at least pro-capitalist ones (anti-capitalist anarchists are a different breed), are welcome in the movement though the small government people are much more numerous. For obvious reasons, it wouldn't make much sense to be an anarchist and a member of a political party -- the primary purpose of which is campaigning for government offices -- so there are few if any anarchists who are actually LP members, and the LP platform advocates a limited constitutional republic, as the Founders intended.
So far as anarchists who do consider themselves libertarians, almost all of those are pro-capitalist and many prefer to be called anarcho-capitalists to distinguish themselves from socialist anarchists. Also the left-anarchists have quite a bit of violence in their traditions, though of course not all of them embrace that, while I've never heard of an anarcho-capitalist who advocated violent revolution.
True that both libertarians and anarchists are not overfond of government. The difference is that most libertarians see at least a minimal government as a necessary evil, and thus could be described as "minarchists", while anarchists consider government an unnecessary evil and want to abolish it entirely.
We'd better distinguish here between the libertarian moverment or ideology (which I expect I'll always be counted as part of, and I completely agree with Hugo's post above) and the Libertarian Party (and despite the Republican label in my party line, I've been an LP member since 1972 though I won't be renewing, mainly due to differences over foreign policy): ideologically, both minimal government people and anarchists, at least pro-capitalist ones (anti-capitalist anarchists are a different breed), are welcome in the movement though the small government people are much more numerous. For obvious reasons, it wouldn't make much sense to be an anarchist and a member of a political party -- the primary purpose of which is campaigning for government offices -- so there are few if any anarchists who are actually LP members, and the LP platform advocates a limited constitutional republic, as the Founders intended.
So far as anarchists who do consider themselves libertarians, almost all of those are pro-capitalist and many prefer to be called anarcho-capitalists to distinguish themselves from socialist anarchists. Also the left-anarchists have quite a bit of violence in their traditions, though of course not all of them embrace that, while I've never heard of an anarcho-capitalist who advocated violent revolution.
Utopian anarchism is at the heart of the corporate libertarian's philosophy. Most believe, quite sincerely, that if the government were to disappear, everything would work out fine pretty well, with a few exceptions in some sectors. Popular things for the corporate libertarian to support government action in are law and order, the military and business subsidies, although some support more and some less.
In general, corporate libertarians give people too much faith. When corporations are given very little government supervision, they abuse it to the fullest extent possible. The laws of supply and demand are only valid when corporations play by the rules, and even when they do play by the rules, it's still too easy for one corporation to simply take over an entire sector of the market if the government doesn't intervene. The entire apparatus of corporate libertarianism is a mechanism to try to avoid this simple truth. I still haven't gotten a good answer to this out of Izzy going on two years now.
Corporate Libertarianism basically the flip-side of Marxism. Marxism is a world controlled by the workers, corporate libertarianism is a world controlled by corporations. Both make the mistake of assuming way to much, and both more likely than not will end up with the power in the hands of a few, ambitious men.
In general, corporate libertarians give people too much faith. When corporations are given very little government supervision, they abuse it to the fullest extent possible. The laws of supply and demand are only valid when corporations play by the rules, and even when they do play by the rules, it's still too easy for one corporation to simply take over an entire sector of the market if the government doesn't intervene. The entire apparatus of corporate libertarianism is a mechanism to try to avoid this simple truth. I still haven't gotten a good answer to this out of Izzy going on two years now.
Corporate Libertarianism basically the flip-side of Marxism. Marxism is a world controlled by the workers, corporate libertarianism is a world controlled by corporations. Both make the mistake of assuming way to much, and both more likely than not will end up with the power in the hands of a few, ambitious men.
Glad to see you here, Rattlesnake, but ... this particular forum isn't the right place to take up this discussion. This is the Party-Specific section where Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists, Greens, etc. get to argue within their own ranks, and it doesn't sound like you've suddenly converted to the Libertarian Party or the libertarian worldview either.
I guess I'm bending that rule a little myself by listing myself as a Republican then posting here, but as previously noted I really AM a libertarian, and still a member of the Libertarian Party though I won't be renewing. I'm officially a Republican here because I've decided it'll be more compatible and productive for me to work with the Republican Liberty Caucus than with the LP, but that's more a strategy decision than an ideological one.
I have never heard anyone describe themself as a Corporate Libertarian, and I don't believe there is any such thing, but we can discuss that further in another of the forums here.
I guess I'm bending that rule a little myself by listing myself as a Republican then posting here, but as previously noted I really AM a libertarian, and still a member of the Libertarian Party though I won't be renewing. I'm officially a Republican here because I've decided it'll be more compatible and productive for me to work with the Republican Liberty Caucus than with the LP, but that's more a strategy decision than an ideological one.
I have never heard anyone describe themself as a Corporate Libertarian, and I don't believe there is any such thing, but we can discuss that further in another of the forums here.
Yes, Rattlesnake, this thread (this particular thread only) is for Libertarians. I would normally delete your post but Izdaari responded to you and I don't want to delete her post.
Please refrain from posting in this thread if you are not a Libertarian.
Please refrain from posting in this thread if you are not a Libertarian.
Sorry. I figured this was for all independants. I'll deleat it myself.
I guess I can't.
I guess I can't.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.