Replies

Definition of libertarian, from Merriam-Webster: an advocate of the doctrine of free will; a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty esp. of thought and action [capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles]

The key word in this definition is, of course, liberty, which is freedom from arbitrary or despotic control.

Response from Reagan Man:
“…I believe the two key words in that sentence are absolute and unrestricted. And the fact is, absolute and unrestricted behavior leads to chaos and chaos, as we all know, eventually, leads to anarchy.”

Absolute and unrestricted, in the definition of libertarian, refer to liberty, not to behavior. Absolute and unrestricted liberty does not mean that I and I alone retain the right to do as I please. It means that all have the right to do as they please. In order for this condition to exist, all must respect the rights of one another – otherwise, by definition, absolute and unrestricted liberty does not exist. It is this understanding and the understanding of human nature that necessitates the need for government. Anarchists share some views with libertarians and Libertarians, such as a yearning to have less restraint from government, but the two groups are not the same. Likewise, Reagan shared views with libertarians, but he is not a libertarian. Moreover, while it seems that you were attempting to contrast the views between Reagan and libertarians, I think that you only drew comparisons.
For example, you posted the following:
“Ronald Reagan was a moral/law and order conservative who believed in the fiscal responsibility of the federal government. Through three campaigns for President, I supported Reagan's political agenda, that promoted tax reduction/tax reform, removing waste, fraud and abuse from government, abolishing certain departments/agencies and generally reducing the overall size and scope of the federal bureaucracy. These are time honored, traditional conservative beliefs and values.”

“Reagan wasn't anti-government. Reagan was pro-government.”

“The conservative movement doesn't support a violent agenda.”

All of the above are views held by most libertarians, not the fringe members of the Libertarian Party, which has hijacked the term. It is because of this that I am amazed at the reaction that has resulted from the quote from Reagan, where he said:
“The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

Less government, more individual freedom – two areas that libertarianism and conservatism agree upon. Why is this such an outrage?

You point out that some libertarians and Libertarians are anti-government anarchists, and then you hammer home the case that Reagan was not anti-government. You are arguing against a case that is not being made. What you are arguing against is the notion that Reagan was a libertarian, and your conclusion is right. But, you back this up by arguing that Reagan was not anti-government – that is not what a libertarian is. Your correct conclusion follows from inaccurate assumptions. It is the fringes of the libertarians and believers in the Libertarian Party platform who are anti-government, or nearly so.

I pointed this out in the last post, but I will write it again – libertarians who buy into the anarchist view of government represent a skewed sample of libertarians. I would go so far as to say that most, by definition, are not libertarians. If they are libertarians, that is, if they believe in and desire absolute and unrestricted liberty, I would expect that their anarchist leanings are the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. The only way that a person can logically come to the conclusion that anarchy is a means of ensuring unrestricted and absolute liberty is to not understand human nature. Most libertarians understand the need for government, because they understand human nature. To deem that libertarians as a group are anarchists, because some libertarians are anarchists, is a logical fallacy. You cannot accurately judge a large group on the basis of its smaller fringe elements. That would be like walking through a junkyard, looking at bunch of old junked Ford trucks and concluding that Ford trucks do not run.

Just a few points.

Your tempered responses are a welcomed change from some of the heated libertarian rhetoric that is continually spewed around here. I especially take note of the following remark you made.

>>>... Reagan ... is not a libertarian.

Finally, honesty.

You also reach some conclusions that aren't true.

If you choose to define your form of libertarianism, as a philosophy that is opposed to the Libertarian Party and its political platform and agenda, that's your decision. Just don't expect astute political observers to accept such a reality. If you want to be associated with the term "libertarian philosophy", then you can't pick and choose to the extent you want to. Why not just call yourself an independent and leave it at that. That would be real political honesty.

This idea you mention, that there are real libertarians and then there are "fringe" libertarians, will come as a shock to the majority who call themselves libertarians here on FreeRepublic.

>>>Less government, more individual freedom - two areas that libertarianism and conservatism agree upon. Why is this such an outrage?

Because there are significant differences that you're over looking. The fact is, many libertarians want America to return to the strict Constitutionalist government that existed at the founding of the Republic. Any intelligent and rational person knows, that isn't possible. Conservatives want the Founding Fathers basic concepts to be followed more closely. But conservatives also understand, the world is more complex today, then it was 200 years ago and therefore, following the true intentions of the Founding Fathers, must be placed in the context of the contemporary times we live in. The government of 1790 could never handle the complicated government and international world we live in today.