I have had the privilege of debating with and learning from many very bright and articulate people here at AD. Quite a few of them label themselves "Libertarian."

I do not know much about Libertarianism. I have heard (from non-Libertarians) that if one actually got into a high office, doctors and nurses could practice without licenses, and our road systems would be neglected, as would other publicly-funded projects. Obviously, I need more education.

So the question is, Would a Libertarian Congress/Presidency be more effective than what we already have (and why)?

(Edited)

Effectiveness of a President has more to do with experience, management style and personal qualities than it does with ideology. But effectiveness in the service of what ends?

I'm going to have to ask for a clarification here: Do you mean a libertarian President/Congress or a Libertarian President/Congress? Generally small "l" libertarian is understood to mean adherents of libertarian ideas, capital "L" Libertarian to mean members of the Libertarian Party. An LP government would probably be a more radically libertarian scenario than, say, a takeover of the GOP by its libertarian faction. Which, btw, is what I am: a libertarian Republican, which also describes Milton Friedman, Larry Elder, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and, I would argue, the late Sen. Barry Goldwater.

If we did elect a Libertarian Party President and also a Libertarian Party majority in Congress, that'd be a radical change, possible only if there were a massive shift to libertarian ideas on the part of the American public. In such a scenario, with such large public support, an LP government would probably be very successful in implementing their agenda. The same would be true of a libertarian Republican government, though it would be more moderate, more gradualist, though either way we'd move toward a much smaller goverment. The difference would be in how far and how fast.

I guess what you're getting at is what would the country look like if the LP Platform were implemented? Or if a libertarian but not necessarily LP agenda were implemented? Either one is a big, big subject, so if that's what you're asking, I'm going to have to sleep on it and come back to it later.

Hear it (read it) from the horse's mouth:

The Great Libertarian Promise

Well, Amazon doesn't seem to be carrying it any longer. Hope your local public library does.

I've got the book. I treasure it as an attempt to break out of the crap that has developed over the decades of my time on Earth. Many conservatives gravitate; many liberals gravitate. It's a rather spooky proposition, given the current overly paranoid mood of the country.

In the book, Harry Browne lays out his first few months in office as President of the United States.

Radical? Revolutionary? I think those terms do fit.

Cut defense down to a fraction of what we have now? Eliminate virtually all government programs? Embrace free markets entirely? Do away with wars on whatevers (including drugs, terrorism, middle class)? Voluntarily give up the status of the most freaking powerful nation on Earth?

Yep. And more. I guess we prefer the well worn and well known, um, quite frankly, fascist thing we have now.

Gawd bless, er, this Amerika that we Love, cuz, well, just because. Because we are accustomed to it. Because we don't have a noodle's worth of pizza sauce to speak of--and other inane arguments.

Anyway, Libertarian has a lot of appeal to both sides of the political spectrum. Keep an eye on the philosophy at the local level. It will never fly at national news-speak levels--takes too much thinking, you know?

I rather like it. But then, I'm a Thoreau fan, too. Not exactly your mainstream political pundit. But just for balance, I think Emerson rocks! (not the dudes Emerson, Lake & Palmer, but Thoreau's contemporary).

It's true, A.M. -- Harry Browne lays out the more radical libertarian vision as well as anyone, which is why the LP has nominated him several times in a row now. I'd take it a little slower and more cautiously myself since I believe in going with what works, and I don't have absolute confidence in any theory including my own until it's been empirically tested. Call me a conservative libertarian, or a Fabian one I guess.

Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz is a good substitute book that is in stock. The used copies are cheap too.

Thanks, Izdaari and AuthorMusician.

In answer to your question, Izdaari, I was trying to frame a question to make it acceptable for a thread here. But I meant more of an and/or than "and." It's actually the principles I'm interested in. So, for the sake of clarification, I'm asking, what about a predominantly big L, Libertarian Party Congress? What could we expect from them that we don't expect from Tweedle D and Tweedle R?

Thanks for the links; I'm going to check my library and perhaps order a copy of the one on Amazon.

Hope this thread isn't a duplication of something in "For Declared Party Members Only."

Are (small l or large L) libertarians against government funding of things like public road maintenance and standard licensure of the professions?

Libertarianism is just another form of Utopian Anarchism. The basic philosophy is that if the government basically goes away, everything will just work out. They even invented a term for it, "spontaneous order." Personally, it sounds like another train wreck to me, at least economically, because it's self-evident that if there were no anti-trust laws, we'd probably have trusts. It happened the last time, why wouldn’t it happen again? Our economic system works fine, its succeeds is unparalleled. I see no reason to make some radical change simply because you like the idea of having a "free market." That would be like abolishing all laws on violence: the strongest and cruelest would dominate everyone else, and although we'd be "free" from the government, we'd just be restricted by other people.


Libertarians basically say that the government should maintain the army, the police force and the court system, and that's about it. I fail to see exactly what problems they're even trying to solve by doing this, and I wonder how they fail to see the problems associated with such a radical (and consistently unsuccessful) domestic policy.

Generally (though certainly not always) I agree with their positions on getting rid of superfluous laws like those concerning drugs, prostitution and the like. But I don't understand why they would want to exchange being ruled by the federal government to being ruled by a small group of very rich men. At least one of those groups is semi-democratic.

The problem is that Libertarians have a weird idea of "free" as it applies to markets. Personally, I don't think a market dominated by trusts and cartels, with gross disparities in access to markets or even information, with all manner of hidden costs ignored, is very free (or efficient for that matter). And they say I'm the one that's crazy.

Going back to the debate question, would Libertarians in power be more effective than what we have now? Effective at what? At creating fair or efficient markets? Definitely not. At performing the few functions of government that even they admit are necessary? Not with every social service de-funded, crime on the rise, charity almost nonexistent. At enriching a few, polluting the environment, allowing dangerous sweatshops and toxic drugs to proliferate? Oh, most definitely.

As it currently exists, the Libertarian party is not effective as a party.That has to happen first, and it will require serious change on their part. And when it comes to change, serious radical change, which is what would be required for Libertarians to become acceptable to the rest of us, well we are all of us in our hearts conservatives. We want our changes to be small and slow in implementation.
However, if by some fluke they did get enough power to gain the presidency/congress, it would be likely the best thing that ever happened to us. The various news channels would have to have triple the amount of embedded reporters that we had in the last war, and the productivity of the nation would drop while we watch the process. We would be more involved than ever before, and the losing parties would probably join together to try to kill the new baby before it is even fully delivered. The public would get a much clearer view of the machinations and behind the scenes manipulations that we have been largely ignorant of before. It would be a revolution.

Some people sure have a narrow constriction on Libertarians and libertarians. Yes, Rattlesnake, there are anarchists who represent the extreme libertarian position. Actually many Democrats take a libertarian stance on social issues, many Republicans take a libertarian stance on economic issues. That is why you see Libertarians on this board who range from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. I personally am of the classical liberal wing of libertarianism. There are functions for government national defense, police power (which includes stopping them nasty corporations from exercising fraud and ruining the environment, and in rare cases of natural monopolies, or oligarchies, regulating them), certain public works such as roads and libraries and recovery or regulation of third-party costs. These are the things government does best. these are the things almost universally recognized as proper functions of government. Government power will always be abused by people in positions of power. The solution is limited government to limit the abuse. Yes, a government fulfilling its' proper functions and not engaging in protecting group rights , but individual rights, will be a more efficient one.

I worked like a dog all day and I'm too tired for debate now, but I'll least post a useful link so Paladin Elspeth and anyone else who's genuinely curious about libertarian ideas can learn more. This one is the LP nominee's position papers from the 2000 campaign: Harry Browne's stand on the issues.

Thanks, Izdaari!

I have started reading it. Will pick up on it tomorrow.

Elspeth

Izdaari, Harry Browne has a lot of good ideas. I think they should be given air time on television.

I just don't know the impact that his ideas would have on older/infirm citizens who depend upon health care for their lives. He likes to mention how things were much better before the government interfered, and yet I know that before Medicare and Medicaid there were many people who just had to do without medicine and doctors.

Thanks for the link! It was certainly worth reading.

AuthorMusician,
Nice link. Are you working for Amazon.com???

In order to have a voice in the political arena, you must be in the arena. If your collection of beliefs is extremely left or right of the majority, you are not in the arena, but still out in the parking lot. You need to be where the majority is. You don't have to become the majority politically speaking, but you do need to be within shouting range to get heard.
That is the reason so many will never get heard, they won't compromise in the least.I am sure someone here knows the proper terminology for this; I am at a loss for words to describe it.
So libertarians, far left socialists, etc. don't have a chance. Unfortunately, it does appear that the extreme right has a very vocal champion for their cause, if you can stand to listen to him.

The two major parties will follow the political center. Third parties must work to move the political center. The American Socialist Party had few electoral successes yet their 1928 platform had been nearly fully implemented by 1970. When given a choice between the party of slowly advancing socialism and the party of rapidly advancing socialism I do often vote for the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, the Republican Party offers no change in direction. Yes third parties do tend to spread a vision and the vision has to catch hold before it transfers into votes. I really don't see maximization of individual freedom and individual responsibility as overly radical.

Many participants here, when citing a book rather than an online source, will link to the title at amazon.com or barnesandnoble.com - as Izdaari did in the post immediately following AuthorMusician's. I find Amazon particularly useful due to the summary, the reader reviews, and the Look Inside the Book feature which usually provides the cover blurb, the table of contents, often the index, and an excerpt. It is a helpful and constructive way to cite a referenced work.

Thanks to both AuthorMusician and Izdaari.



EDITED TO ADD:

By the way, I don't work for amazon.com either, john. Did you have something to contribute to this thread?