Thanks for making my point for me.
Posted on 01/11/2002 8:57:38 AM PST by vannrox
Just what is a Libertarian?
(The party & philosophy)
Out of the many political philosophies that exist, one of the most misunderstood is libertarianism. It is frequently labeled part of the “extreme right”, or it is merely associated with drug legalization. Truthfully, there may be several definitions of the term, but in general, libertarianism encompasses all or most of the following: strong support of individual civil liberties, social tolerance, and private property; belief in the positive powers of the free market; and an espousal of constitutionally limited and greatly reduced government. To put it succinctly, the libertarian believes in the freedom of individuals to pursue their lives as they see fit, as long as they cause no harm to others, with minimal governmental interference.
Libertarian thought is rooted historically in the ideas of many of the Enlightenment thinkers, including John Locke, Voltaire, and Adam Smith, as well as many of the founding fathers of America, including Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Paine. Many libertarians prefer to call themselves “classical liberals”. Their philosophy has also been influenced by writer Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism”, and various free-market economists, including Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises.
To more clearly illustrate libertarian thoughts and beliefs, it is helpful to see how these ideas would affect certain issues being debated at this time. Specifically, Freedom of Speech,
(Keep in mind that libertarians, like most people, don’t agree on everything. In fact, their emphasis on individualism gives rise to a great deal of disagreement.)
The international scene (including military defense),
Taxation,
and, of course, Drug Prohibition.
Libertarians are strongly supportive of the civil liberties detailed in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. They maintain that the Constitution does not grant us these rights, but instead recognizes those rights we naturally possess by virtue of our humanity. Included in these rights is the freedom of speech. Unlike many other supporters of free speech, the libertarian sees it as having a connection with property rights. For example, many would claim that to deny the publication of a certain person’s ideas or works would be censorship. The libertarian would say that you can publish anything you would like on a printing press you personally own, but to force someone else to print it would be coercion.
Another area in which libertarians have a unique philosophy is that concerning international affairs, military defense, and police functions. Many in the libertarian movement believe that the only legitimate functions of government are to provide military protection and law enforcement. They would oppose those “entangling alliances” that Jefferson mentioned which lead to treaties like NATO and organizations like the United Nations. They believe these can lead to unnecessary entanglements with other nations, and may ultimately usurp the sovereignty of the individual.
When it comes to the issue of taxes, it is helpful to reflect on the libertarian’s view of property rights. The libertarian view is generally that an individual should have the right to do with his property what he will, as long as it is not causing harm to someone else. In this case, the property being considered is the money an individual has earned. If the result of your labor is money, then it belongs to you, not the government. If another individual came along and took your money from you without your consent, it would be considered theft by our legal system. The libertarian views it as no less a crime when the government takes your money without your consent via taxation. (In those cases where taxation is “necessary”, libertarians prefer the taxes to be low and only minimally intrusive.)
The aspect most often associated with its philosophy by people only marginally familiar with libertarianism concerns the subject of drug legalization. What should be remembered is that the libertarian advocates personal freedom, which they believe includes the right to make decisions concerning your own body. They would argue that today’s drug prohibition is very similar to the alcohol prohibition of the 1920’s, which helped spawn a great deal of criminal activity, profiteering for criminal gangs, and turned otherwise peaceful, law-abiding citizens into criminals. (Of course, if the use of drugs by an individual causes them to harm another, that person must take responsibility for their actions, and must make restitution or receive appropriate punishment.) They also believe that the “drug war” has largely been a failure in its goals, and has diverted law enforcement away from other, more serious crimes.
Libertarian philosophy can be applied to most any issue being debated in our time. By looking at the four areas of freedom of speech, international affairs, taxation, and drug policy, it is easy to see that libertarian thought at its most basic level agrees with Jefferson’s statement, “That government is best which governs least.”
Written by Deanna Corbeil
And from what you have written, Mr. Goldberg, they're right. No matter how many times you claim to "get it", the fact is, you don't.
I think most libertarians are quite capable of easily distinguishing a difference between Christian book stores and porno stores. But the libertarian refuses to stand in your way when it comes down to where you want to do business. He may very well have some very strong feelings indeed about the destructive nature of porn, and he'll be glad to tell you why he thinks it's destructive and why you shouldn't buy it or look at it. But he will not decide, for you, whether or not you will buy a Bible or a Hustler. He leaves that decision entirely up to you. And he believes that if you try, conversely, to make that decision for him, that you are an immoral SOB for doing so.
Why is that such a hard concept to understand?
Don't confuse party affiliation with ideology.
Hail Chief DISTORTION Warrior!
Find me a thread where Libertarians are advocating drug abuse? Advocating decriminalization or legalization is NOT the same thing as advocating use.
Tobacco is legal and I don't advocate smoking cigarettes or dipping snuff.
I will enjoy a nice Padron a bit later, however!
As long as there are doctors willing to perform the procedure, and their are patients who are seeking the procedure, the option must remain legal.
Do I believe that abortion is a morally correct choice? Nope. Not by a long shot. Would I ever encourage someone to obtain one? Never. But it is equally immoral for me to restrict their liberty and make their choice for them by outlawing the procedure. I'm free to tell people that I believe to choose abortion is morally wrong, just as they are free to tell me that I'm insane to believe in a God that allows human suffering. But I am not free to impose my morality on them.
That is the question I keep asking myself. Seems simple enough for me.
You know for a political ideaology(Libertarianism) whose adherants always say that they never intiate force(blah, blah, blah) they are the first ones to throw out names as "smears".
If they were true to their "principles" they would never intiate the force of "smears".
The minute you cease teaching and start imposing, you become as evil as the thing you are trying to eliminate.
That is the question I keep asking myself. Seems simple enough for me.
I think it's a case of can't and don't want to being interchangeable.
I don't believe you.
However, many of the conservatives on FR are closet Statists (some have actually confessed to it) and are very authoritarian leaning and are potentially totalitarian government cheerleaders.
I suspect some libertarians believe life begins at conception, and therefore advocate illegalizing abortion. Some believe life begins later, and would allow abortion. You'll find the same in the Republican Party. To a much lesser extent, also the same in the Democrat Party.
Nonsense. Name one libertarian - just one - who is pro-drug addiction.
First was Libertarians Under My Skin by Jonah Goldberg
Then Harry Browne Responded with Freedom First
Lastly Jonah responded to Harry with I Said It Was Over.. I lied .
These do not take long to read. I personally think that both sides have enough in common to fight together.
Correct. The libertarian believes that there is no need to find a solution. The market will solve the problem if given a chance. The statist just can't resist meddling and making things worse. It's called hubris, my friend.
Or violate their posting privilege agreement.
"The problem with the both Clintons is that they were long ago licensed to think and act at primitive, immature, and irrational levels of functioning. Much of this was a self-conferred licensing by a generation which has continued, and which has been the root of most of the political, economic, and social problems in this country."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Kocher is the author of "The American Mind in Denial." He is an engineer working in the area of solid-state physics, and has done graduate study in clinical psychology. His email address is steiner@access.mountain.net.
from... The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 3, No 7, Feb. 15, 1999
Yeah...hubris---Libertarianism--ANARCHY!
Nothing wrong with imposing the view that the Hitlers and Hitos of the would should not be able to impose their beliefs on the world.
Of course, didn't I read somewhere something about the idea that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in large part because we were imposing an oil embargo on Japan? (Of course, Japan prompted that U.S. embargo by imposing their will elsewhere.)
Any time someone imposes their will on someone else, there are going to be negative consequences to follow. Look at Ireland and the Middle East. All it does is to establish a groundwork of injustice that can never be resolved because people refuse to stop pointing their finger at everyone else as being the instigator, the one who did the initial imposing of their will on others. Pretty soon, we get to the point where the killing never stops.
All because somebody had to be first in initiating force against someone else.
Thanks for making my point for me.
That should be, "Hitlers and Hirohitos"
This is completely true - if not especially original. What does it have to do with what I said?
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.