Posted on 01/11/2002 8:57:38 AM PST by vannrox
(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
Solution: Absolute and unwavering respect for the rights of individuals...psychopaths-criminals!!
You are confusing politics with ideology. Although I have previously pointed out that Harry Brown is the political leader of Libertarians, he is also true to Libertarianism, unlike many "Conservatives" who lead the Republican party. If one is true to his/her Libertarian beliefs, then they must be for keeping Abortion legal, because Libertarianism is a Utopian political dream.
I once thought that I was a Libertarian, but my objection to Abortion keeps me from making that claim.
You respect psychopaths and criminals?
No wonder you seem so perpetually confused.
I am vehemently pro-life.
I am also a libertarian.
Alcohol is bad and causes addiction often. Easy to know that.
Tobacco is bad and causes addiction always. Easy to know that.
The alcohol prohibition failed 100%, and the current drug prohibition has only succeded in ruining the 9th and 10th Amendments to our great Constitution, making local police forces and the US Government more powerful while NOT REDUCING DRUG PRODUCTION OR CONSUMPTION AT ALL.
"Drug use as a recreation is totally immoral"
please explain when it became the job of the government to legislate morality. Should we take to trial and imprison criminals if found guilty of a CRIME (with a victim and a perpetrator)? Absolutely. But there is a difference between the person who gets high and the person who gets high and steals your car: only one is a criminal.
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
--John Quincy Adams
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
--Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
--Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
- Plato
"Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state."
-Mark Twain
"Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."
-- C.S. Lewis
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of Temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes at the very principles upon which our government was founded."
-Abraham Lincoln
It beats being true to totalitarianism each and every day of the week.
Do I believe that those who made the decision to abort the child in your photo were immoral? Yes, because they imposed their belief that the child should not be allowed to live on that child. That is highly immoral.
Would I be any less immoral than those who made that decision if I imposed my decision to not abort that child for them? I would be equally, if not more, immoral. If it is moral to force another to do right, then why isn't God forcing us all to do right? Because it would be immoral for Him to do so, and He would cease to be God.
I believe that God is a great believer and promoter of liberty. I believe that He so opposes the idea of the restriction of liberty that He was willing to cast out 1/3 of the host of heaven over the idea.
If I am forced to be moral, there is no credit in being moral, for the opportunity to be immoral doesn't exist. All must be free to choose between right and wrong, but none will be free to escape the consequences of that choice.
That's what liberty is all about.
On the contrary, if one believes life begins at conception (I do), abortion would be the initiation of force against an individual. Entirely consistent with libertarian ideology.
Were we as evil as Hitler to impose our view in WWII? If not, then imposing is not always wrong. You are to rigid in your Freedom First.
Did you read those pieces? like this one here
Here is part of it regarding Freedom First.
Admittedly, conservatism is not always and everywhere on the same side of every issue, like Mr. Brownee's version of libertarianism. He puts the highest emphasis on individual liberty (leftists place their highest emphasis on equality — another nice thing when unforced and taken in moderation). Well and good. And depending on the issue and the context, conservatives can generally be counted on to agree (Republicans are a different matter).
But let us be clear. If you think no other value can ever trump individual liberty you are Harry Brownee's kind of guy. If any circumstance or threat, any condition or cause, arises that might minimally constrain individual liberty then you must — for consistency's sake — oppose it. The draft? Always wrong. Government-funded scientific research? Nope. Public schools? Highways? Libraries? Parks? No! No way! Never. Nope. Speed limits, school zones, movie ratings, driver's licenses, any drug, pornography, or immigration laws? Nah-ah. Restrictions on homosexual marriage? Certainly not. Prohibitions on the depiction of pedophilia on TV? Well, you can't support them (the libertarian position on actual pedophilia is unclear to me). Indeed, Mr. Libertarian, I defy you – you who holds consistency so lofty — to come up with a single sentence that tells me what specific form of taxation would satisfy all libertarians everywhere and all the time.
Of course, this is all a little bit unfair. Many of these topics cause considerable debate among libertarians themselves. Because, as Mr. Brownee surely knows, there's less consistency in the libertarian camp than he's willing to admit.
Indeed, it's simplicity itself to be a libertarian when debating the role of the federal government. But what about your town or your neighborhood? Here things get tricky. At some level individual liberty is no longer the highest value. Suddenly Mr. Brownee's one-item ideological checklist — he says "All it takes is to ask yourself what it is you really want" — descends into selfishness or sophistry.
Can't our legitimate wants trample other people's legitimate wants? And please don't tell me, "It depends on how you define 'want.'" Because if it does, than you are judging the legitimacy or validity of another person's self-interest — a libertarian no-no.
We all know that there are the rights of associations, organizations, churches, and families. There are the needs of communities and institutions. And sometimes they necessarily constrain individual liberty. As Spock says in Star Trek II, "logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." And as Kirk (James T., not Russell A.) adds, "Or the one." (Which is why democracy will never be fully to the libertarian's liking. Conservatives have different problems with democracy, but that's another matter).
Three Cheers for Arguments
This all goes to the fact that there's room for debate. As any pro-life libertarian will tell you, there are good arguments to be found among the libertarians, just as there are good arguments to be found within the conservative movement. And that is a wonderful thing. Arguments offer insight. Arguments are necessary because not every event presents itself in an ideologically consistent and digestible fashion. Sometimes it is a noble thing to conscientiously refuse to enlist in a war. And other times it is cowardice and treason. The trick is to figure out which is which, and the only way to do that is have people of good will disagree with each other.
This is precisely why the conservative movement needs libertarians — because they are vital voices (indeed, that's why I voted Libertarian in 1992). Libertarianism is an intellectual acid test for conservatism. Libertarians keep the rest of us honest by always asking, among other things, "Why should government do it?" And that is always a good question, even when there's a good answer. But the fact that conservatives are open to the question puts those asking it squarely on the Right.
Russell Kirk, who could not define conservatism in a paragraph, much less a sentence, would consider it folly to even try. Kirk wrote, "Conservatism is not a fixed and immutable body of dogma." Rather it is a recognition that life often pits some values against others, and that men are not always brilliant at sorting out which value should trump which in any given situation. As Edmund Burke noted, "The nature of man is intricate; the objects of society are of the greatest possible complexity; and therefor no simple disposition or direction of power can be suitable either to man's nature or to the quality of his affairs."
I make no pretense that conservatism is always right. It has its flaws, as Hayek underscored when he said that it tends to get pulled in a direction not of its own choosing. But, it seems to me equally ridiculous to say that libertarianism is always right — freedom is not always first. At least conservatism, through its humility, is flexible enough to recognize this fact. Mr. Brownee wants a simple and consistent philosophy of life. So do I. The only trouble is life keeps getting in the way.
"I am also a libertarian."
Oxymoron statement of the day for sure!
Do you support keeping Abortion legal?
No wonder you seem so perpetually confused.
143 posted on 1/11/02 1:18 PM Pacific by OWK
memo to Republicans on FR: you had ALL THREE branches of govt for a time, and still failed to even move on the abortion issue. You have a pro-choice party which lies to you and says they're pro-life when they ask for money and when they ask you to vote for their candidates.
I myself bought into the lie that GWB was pro-life when I voted for him.
and yes, most libertarians vote GOP.
I would have more respect for the GOP if they just came out that they're NOT pro-life.
It is perfectly reasonable to be able to use force to counter the initiation of force.
Using force is not always wrong. Initiating the use of force against others always is.
"Do I believe that those who made the decision to abort the child in your photo were immoral? Yes, because they imposed their belief that the child should not be allowed to live on that child. That is highly immoral."
"Would I be any less immoral than those who made that decision if I imposed my decision to not abort that child for them? I would be equally, if not more, immoral. If it is moral to force another to do right, then why isn't God forcing us all to do right? Because it would be immoral for Him to do so, and He would cease to be God."
"I believe that God is a great believer and promoter of liberty. I believe that He so opposes the idea of the restriction of liberty that He was willing to cast out 1/3 of the host of heaven over the idea."
"If I am forced to be moral, there is no credit in being moral, for the opportunity to be immoral doesn't exist. All must be free to choose between right and wrong, but none will be free to escape the consequences of that choice."
"That's what liberty is all about."
I guess people who believe as you do, prove to me that one doesn't have to believe in God to be morally sound. I am an Agnostic who can argue morality without using Theology. Abortion snuffs out civilization and teaches it's citizens that life is cheap and has no sanctity.
Nothing personal, but your above statement is one of the sickest attempts at logic that I have unfortunately read lately.
Nothing in the least contradictory about that statement.
Do you support keeping Abortion legal?
No. Abortion should be prohibited by law. (although that law should be administered at the state level, and not at the federal level, for constitutional reasons)
I AGREE WITH THIS COMPLETELY....and I am a Conservative (a Christian Conservative at that!).
I don't want to prohibit porn, gambling, alcohol, tobacco or drugs; I only want to regulate it. Simple regulations - "You can't sell pot to a minor"
Abortion is a violation of the Right to Life, Liberty and Property. It must be prohibited at the State level on Constitutional grounds, just as murder.
Do you think silly sloganeering like this really adds anything of value to the conversation?
Of couse this doesn't mean that a bunch of libertarians would be incapable of starting up a volunteer army. Make your case for a defensive force, and you'll probably persuade enough of them to fund it. Voluntarily.
Government-funded scientific research? Nope.
Make your case for government-funded scientific research, and if your case is compelling enough, you'll probably persuade enough of them to fund it. Voluntarily.
Public schools? Highways? Libraries? Parks? No! No way! Never. Nope.
Make your case for government-funded whatever, and if your case is compelling enough, you'll probably persuade enough of them to fund it. Voluntarily.
I hope you're picking up a pattern here.
It always boils down to whether or not you can persuade someone else to do something voluntarily. Non-libertarians, however, seem to feel justified in forcing others to pay for their pet programs. Just how do they justify that? The old "ends justify the means" argument?
However, I find it laughable that we have people here who say that they are little "l" libertarians, and big "L" Libertarians. Libertarianism is a Utopian dream, like it or not, and those who are shape-shifters within Libertarianism only give us more ammo. Plain and simple, Libertarianism dictates that one can Abort human life whenever and for whatever reason.
Good for you. I just happen to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who sees libertarian principles as being entirely in keeping with gospel principles.
Sorry if that offends you.
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.