Posted on 06/24/2013 11:41:35 AM PDT by jagusafr
Mrs. Colonel and I were watching Stossel's "Illegal Everything" last night and it led to a discussion of what, precisely, the precepts of libertarianism are. Anybody got suggestions on a succinct, unwonky treatise or explanation?
Actually both the World’s Smallest Quiz and the Political Ideology quiz both came back with the same result for me. I am Conservative. So both work fine.
There’s a difference between a functional (small “l”) libertarians whose motto seems to be “live and let live” and a doctrinal Libertarian who spends as much time on hair-splitting exercises as leftists - but with varying conclusions.
Libertarians are throwback to classical liberals Classical liberalism places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty. This forms the philosophical basis for laissez-faire public policy. The ideology of the original classical liberals argued against direct democracy “for there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law.”[17] For example, James Madison argued for a constitutional republic with protections foClassical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government. Thomas Jefferson called these inalienable rights: “...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”[21] For classical liberalism, rights are of a negative nature—rights that require that other individuals (and governments) refrain from interfering with individual liberty, whereas social liberalism (also called modern liberalism or welfare liberalism) holds that individuals have a right to be provided with certain benefits or services by others.[22] Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are “hostile to the welfare state.”[17] They do not have an interest in material equality but only in “equality before the law”.[23] Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights.[24] r individual liberty over a pure democracy, reasoning that, in a pure democracy, a “common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole...and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party....”
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Ludwig von Misis was a classical liberal that had a significant influence on the libertarian movement in the United States in the mid-20th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises
Ludwig von Misis was a classical liberal
Ditto - conservative.
If by tepid you mean unwilling to send someone else to put a gun to the head of anyone not living their personal life the way you want them to, then yeah, color me tepid. A century ago it was calling living within the confines of the constitution.
Great...Captain Cut-n-Paste is back to stink up another thread.
Agreed....”Libertarians are a cult like fantasy, that is why they can gear their message to any audience there is, they merely give the portion that reflects whatever that particular audience prefers.”
Pros at bait and switch.
I took it...
This quiz has categorised you as a Conservative.
You believe in a limited/minimal role in the government to solve social problems, and instead believe economic growth is paramount.
It is possible you may identify with the “religious right” as well.
I always come out Conservative on these Tests....some further right then others but for the most part..conservative.
There is the Ayn Rand libertarian and the libertarian party they are not at all the same thing.
No that is not what I meant. I too am all about leaving one to one’s own devices (when it does not affect others). I have several libertarian acquaintances and I cannot seem to pin them down on any position. One example that I know here causes much debate is the WOD. They are all about ending it but cannot give viable alternatives to unfettered access/supply. I don’t want to debate that here and now since it is a no-win, but they don’t have any tangible solution other than to say “end it”. I don’t see that as a complete answer.
Me, I don’t give a sh*t what you do.......just don’t ask me to pay for it. So, am I a Libertarian?
Andy Griffith did a show on this:
Youtube: Barney put the whole town in jail.
Sure, as evidenced by your cussing and beliefs, you are.
You would agree with the libertarian position in post 16.
Not even close. I believe children need mommies and daddies; one of each. You’re correct in that I don’t object to what two consenting adults do behind closed doors though. It’s none of my business. Lol, I didn’t know that cussin’ defined or was limited to libertarians.
Saying that you don’t care what people do in their bedrooms in regards to legislation and political positions of today doesn’t reveal anything, it doesn’t say anything, so this is two posts wasted trying to figure out what your point is.
There's the problem: you seem unwilling to accept unfettered access/supply as a consequent. But let me ask this: how much government intrusion would be acceptable? Isn't it true that the abuses we suffer today are because of the mission creep
of the War on Drugs? — Why not simply leave the government out of regulation there altogether? It's not as if an employer cannot have drug-use as a grounds for termination. (Moreover, the War on Drugs feeds into the horrid idea that the Federal government is superior to the States, a mentality which is at odds with the 9 & 10th amendments. )
I don’t want to debate that here and now since it is a no-win, but they don’t have any tangible solution other than to say “end it”. I don’t see that as a complete answer.
What about the Federal Reserve? People would make all sorts of similar arguments "what will we replace it with?" ... but overlook the fact that it just didn't exist a century ago, just as the War on Drugs.
With Ansel anyone who does not automatically and instinctively agree with his position is Libertarian Homosexual-loving Scum
... or somesuch.
Don't bother trying a reasoned approach, he'll just keep posting that same cut-n-paste portion of text over-and-over, claiming that it can only mean what he asserts it to mean.
I ended up a 87% libertarian and 79% conservative, 22% far right, 14% liberal, 1% social democrat, and 0% socialist.
Apparently, I am a Rand Paul/Ted Cruz voter.
A couple of things, don’t drag your grudges from thread to thread, and your post made no sense at all, it was merely a ridiculous and irrelevant personal attack out of nowhere.
Can you try it again and try to make it sane and relevant to what I or the poster actually posted?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.