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
I'm leaving work now (it's been a really slow day), but will not be able to reply from home because I cannot access FreeRepublic anymore from there. I have been bitching to my ISP (RoadRunner).
Later,
Lormand
Wouldn't we spend more enforcing who can use the highway?
Well, let's face it: there are countless laws (mostly little ones like speed limits and copyright laws) that are broken every day and where the just punishment is not meted out. Sometimes it's a "play the odds" kind of situation: the more often you go faster than the speed limit, the more likely it is that you're going to be nailed for it, eventually.
If we're determined to keep the non-highway-taxpayers off of the highway, I suppose we could issue all of the taxpayers a cardkey so that only cardkey holders can gain access to the on-ramps somehow...
Being semi-facetious here. To carry it a step further: What happens when a non-taxpayer has a heart attack and the ambulance shows up? Should the ambulance not be allowed to use the highway?
As a Californian, I have to admit to having a case of culture shock when I drove around in Florida for the first time: maybe toll roads are the way to go. That way, only those who drive on the specific roads in question end up paying for them, and you pay for them in the proportion in which you use them.
It's when Goldbrick says things like this that he proves his email correspondents to be right. Goldjerk doesn't "get it". Nor does he understand Hayek.
Hayek didn't believe in the primacy of liberty. In tradition of his mentor Mises, he believed in the primacy of the market. He believed that the only way to determine what is right was by letting the market determine it.
Hayek was humble enough to be a conservative. But he was a conservative because he believed that tradition was the distilled wisdom of the market. That is we observe our traditions because they work. This is because other competing traditions failed in the marketplace of cultures.
People like Greenbacks who call themselves conservatives without making reference to the traditions of our culture are liars. And they most certainly are not Hayekian.
I not only accept your apology, but extend to you an apology from me as well.
In the spirit of George Castansa from Seinfeld...
Now, lets band together and route out the Islamic animals who wish death on us!
Just like a libertarian. Whine Whine Whine. Next he'll hit the abuse button for pointing out his hypocracy. Benson, you've been whipped like a slow farm animal. Go in peace while you still have some dignity.
did someone have a gun to your head when you clicked on my profile page, or did you do it of your own free will? I am not sensitive in the least. Here, this is a picture of the motto I hold dear enough to wear on my skin for life:
you are strange individual, Dane. You seem to thrive on confrontation. I will pray for you, my friend.
It's Friday evening here, and I'm going for a pint of Guinness and a game of darts.
I like to think that libertarian and authoritarian are absolute opposites and absolutes.
Liberalism and Conservativism contain shades of each.
I'm grabbing a hefe-weissen in my fridge when I get home...I'll toast one for ya!
A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.
A libertarian is a conservative who's been arrested.
Good day.
Uh unless you live on an island all by yourself, life is confrontation. Societies are built on how to deal with confrontation.
Here's part of the problem - because pot is harmful, or because FDR didn't want to fire redundant T-men after alcohol prohibition was repealed? The Feds **lied** about the harmfulness of reefer. Read Solzhynetsin (?sp) - one of the most demoralizing aspects of living under Communism was the constant lies. Also try Aesop the slave, specifically 'the boy who cried wolf'. What if there were a drug that really was dangerous - woud anyone believe the Feds if they actually told the truth about it? Aren't you a bit worried that the Fed. Gov't has gotten a reputation for lying?
Ron Paul, when he headed the LP ticket in 1984, wrote a campaign book, the first sentence of which is (appr) 'has America become a nation of liars?'
I hope I can have as fruitful a dialogue with all Libertarians in the Future. We can fight together to accomplish much, while still auguring the few things we disagree about.
How about this issue? This comes from my party platform. (Constitution Party)
Taxes
The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States."
In Article I, Section 9, the original document made clear that "no Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." It is moreover established that "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
Since 1913, our Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property have been abridged and diminished by the assumption of direct taxing authority on each of us by the federal government.
We will propose legislation to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, and will veto any authorization, appropriation, or continuing resolution which contains any funding whatsoever for that illicit and unconstitutional agency. We are opposed to the flat-rate tax proposals that are being promoted as an improvement to the current tax system. The Sixteenth Amendment does not provide authority for an unapportioned direct tax.
Moreover, it is our intention to replace entirely the current tax system of the U.S. government (including income taxes, Social Security taxes, estate taxes, and inheritance taxes).
To the degree that tariffs on foreign products are insufficient to cover the legitimate Constitutional costs of the federal government, we will offer an apportioned "state-rate tax" in which the responsibility for covering the cost of unmet obligations will be divided among the several states in accordance with their proportion of the total population of the United States, excluding the District of Columbia. Thus, if a state contains 10 percent of the nation’s citizens, it will be responsible for assuming payment of 10 percent of the annual deficit.
The effect of this "state-rate tax" will be to encourage politicians to argue for less, rather than more, federal spending, and less state spending as well.
We endorse ratification of the Liberty Amendment, which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
I think authoritarian is more a description of a political system rather than a political philosophy. Socialism, Communism, Nationalism, Despotism, etc. can all be authoritarian in how they are implemented. I believe libertarianism and socialism/communism are polar opposites in their views as to wheather public policy is a tool to advance the interest of the individual or the state.
Liberalism and Conservativism contain shades of each.
Yes. But how much of each depends on when and where you are talking about. In Communist China, a Conservative would be a hard core party loyalist - in favor of socialism and tight central control. A liberal would be in favor of more democracy and free markets.
I find it kind of oxymoronic that people who claim to be conservatives today can decry the socialism of FDR and his policies, yet champion the very government bureaucracies and programs they brought about.
Thank you Madame for your correction of my spelling.
But aren't you dismissing your own "no force, no fraud" tenet, by forcing yourself to correct my bad spelling?
"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. Browne wants a simple and consistent philosophy of life. So do I. The only trouble is life keeps getting in the way."
I take that as Hayek underscored that conservatism has it's flaws. I do not read Goldberg saying Hayek subscribed to primacy of liberty.
He was responding to Harry Browne when he stated "primacy of liberty" in his - Freedom First -piece (I linked earlier in this thread).
Republicans recognize McCain is an irrelevant fringe character. Bush is our man. That’s why we elected him President. He speaks well for me on the vast majority of issues. You might say Bush is a prototypical republican. McCain is only significant for the purposes of the leftist press.
Libertarians chose Mr. Browne to speak for them. If Mr. Browne does not speak for you, he must speak for the majority of Libertarians because they elected him their spokesman. If Mr. Browne doesn’t speak for you, then maybe it’s time to take a look at who your compatriots are. You just might discover it’s time to move on to something a bit more functional.
Neither have I; perhaps he meant to say that by 'stealing votes from the GOP' that LP candidates help elect D*m*cr*ts. Generally speaking, I'd say that libertarians are much more fearful of socialism than GOPers are, or the GOPers wouldn't tolerate their current leadership. Remember that the LP was founded in reaction to Nixon's imposition of wage and price controls. IMHO, one of the reasons GHW Bush was defeated was that he promulgated a ban on 'assault rifles'. How can a so-called conservative party keep nominating people who do things like that ??!!
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.