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
It also does not address the death penalty.
I'm not pro-abortion. - Prosecuting abortion as murder, with due process, is fine with me.
But constitutionaly, it cannot be prohibited. - #299 - tpaine
---------------------------------
"Notice that the test does not address the issue of Abortion, which does nothing to aid the arguments of either of us."
It also does not address the death penalty. - dane -
Notice the 'mighty dane' has no comment when confronted with rational thought. -- He is just another petty authoritarian, wrapped up in a cloak of false 'morals', who wants control over others lives.
Why don't you try being a little more sanctimonious and pretentious next time! he he!
Well, we have some disagreements, but we both agree that liberal and conservative are policically relative terms, and that libertarian is an absolute term. The test seems to be geared toward your political leanings in relative terms. I'd say this is more a case of misuse of the term libertarian by the person who wrote the test and made the chart.
To hold the cost of road building to primary users is impossible -- and if you tried it, it's unfair to the users, for they would have to directly assume the costs for every primary and secondary benefit of road use, all the way down the line from trucked commodities to the value of a weekend stay with friends in another state.
So how you gonna calculate the price of beef?
Sure, sure, meat will be charged xx dollars per pound + xx cents per mile. I suppose the beefeaters can just choose to live near Greeley, CO (ever tried to breathe outside a slaughterhouse?)
Even if you could make a user-fee road system, you'd better make every road user-fee, 'cuz those old market principles you libertarians worship will entice competitor roads or other forms of transport to take over, then you'll have no road users at all, and all the secondary beneficiaries of roads would lose out, as well. Think about it next time you run up to the store -- the Oreos you buy are already building roads in Illinois.
With your system, Oreos may be cheaper -- if you live near the Oreo factory, but on your way to the store to buy them you'll have to drop a quarter to pass the gates that have replaced every stop light. Or, you can just await the GPS- tracked, per mile, "road use" bill you get at the end of every month. You think that's absurd? In the name of profits and efficiency, fleet drivers today are GPS-tracked 24/7. That's some freedom they've got. Do the same for every driver, and you've just created a far worser police state than that we already have.
Sorry, the "socialized" road system we have is the only possible way. The key is to keep it local, to keep away the Feds and their annual regulations-for-funding extortions.
In that thread, Carrie_Okie smothers and extinguishes Nicollo's excuse du jour for why we gotta have state socialism (the highly popular "public goods" excuse) like Greg Anthony and Anderson Hunt used to swarm upon and trap dribblers the second they crossed the half-court line.
Uh I am not the one who lives by the "no force, no fraud" tenet. By posting your "opinions" in which you were not specifically asked or pinged. You are "forcing" your opinion on another even though they never specifically asked.
I never said there was anything wrong with this, all I was doing with my opinion(all opinions are a form of force, IMHO), is saying that the "no force, no fraud" tenet cannot work when in an interactive world and is hypocritical.
Whoever this person is they seem to be copying your style of posting.
:)
Whatever, I'll remember that every time you butt into a converstion, "forcing" your opinion.
Pinging tpaine, a well known pro-abortion Libertarian on FR.
Tpaine, are you in a major disagreement with your Libertarian brethren?
195 posted on 1/11/02 2:23 PM Pacific by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies
To: Dane
I'm not pro-abortion. - Prosecuting abortion as murder, with due process, is fine with me.
But constitutionaly, it cannot be prohibited.
- #299 -
-------------------------------
You bait me with snide slurs, unsupported unsolicited opinion, -- and then cowardly slink away when rebutted. --- While you call others here 'hypocrites' for challenging you.
You have no honor.
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.