Libertarianism is the only political view which makes any sense.

Libertarianism:

The political party that believes that the government should only be responsible for protecting citizen's physical property, including their lives.

Everything else is up to the individual and their personal desires/choides, including abortion, gun rights, drug use, gay marriage, charity, censorship

Under a Libertarian governement, none of the above would be regulated nor prohibited, and the companies that would provide those services would be privatized, so that people could enjoy the best services at the lowest prices because companies would want to supply it, since the government wouldn't be funding or supporting them.

In other words, everything is based on the truth and accountability of the individual.

Why wouldn't society want this? Democrats and Republicans are too focused on benefitting themselves and other agendas....

Libertarianism is only party which actually believes in true freedom...which our country is supposedly based on.

Thoughts?

Libertarianism:

The political party that believes that the government should only be responsible for protecting citizen's physical property, including their lives.

Everything else is up to the individual and their personal desires/choides, including abortion, gun rights, drug use, gay marriage, charity.

Under a Libertarian governement, none of the above would be regulated nor prohibited, and the companies that would provide those services would be privatized, so that people could enjoy the best services at the lowest prices because companies would want to supply it, since the government wouldn't be funding or supporting them.

In other words, everything is based on the truth and accountability of the individual.

Why wouldn't society want this? Democrats and Republicans are too focused on benefitting themselves and encroaches on citizens rights for no reason other than their gain.

Libertarianism seems like it eliminates most aspects of political corruption and in a country where we pride ourselves on "freedom" it finally gives us real freedom.

Thoughts?

sboyer2

yeah ever since I started looking into the Libertarian party I like what I see more and more. here in Canada I don't think we have that party but I might just check it out and see if we do.

Libertarianism:

The political party that believes that the government should only be responsible for protecting citizen's physical property, including their lives.

Everything else is up to the individual and their personal desires/choides, including abortion, gun rights, drug use, gay marriage, charity, censorship

Under a Libertarian governement, none of the above would be regulated nor prohibited, and the companies that would provide those services would be privatized, so that people could enjoy the best services at the lowest prices because companies would want to supply it, since the government wouldn't be funding or supporting them.

In other words, everything is based on the truth and accountability of the individual.

Why wouldn't society want this? Democrats and Republicans are too focused on benefitting themselves and other agendas....

Libertarianism is only party which actually believes in true freedom...which our country is supposedly based on.

Thoughts?

sboyer2

Capitalism is the only place where you can get rich from being more heartless than a serial killer. Companies need to be kept in line. But the individual should have freedom.

The Libertarians that have come up for election have been in favor of getting rid of all government regulation - including anti-trust laws.

No thanks.mattbbpl

The Libertarians that have come up for election have been in favor of getting rid of all government regulation - including anti-trust laws.

No thanks.mattbbpl

Eh, no thanks. I feel that the government is a little to libertarian as is with it's lax regulations.

I don't think so.

I remember I had a brief time a while back in college when I flirted with libertarianism because it all sounds well and good on paper... then I thought better of it when I got better acquainted with reality... :P

The invisible hand of the market is all well and good until you get into a situation in which market failure - the inability of individuals acting in their own interest to arrive at the most optimal situation for all parties - is an inevitability. And contrary to the often-made assertion of libertarians, market failure does happen.

I remember I had a brief time a while back in college when I flirted with libertarianism because it all sounds well and good on paper... then I thought better of it when I got better acquainted with reality... :P

The invisible hand of the market is all well and good until you get into a situation in which market failure - the inability of individuals acting in their own interest to arrive at the most optimal situation for all parties - is an inevitability. And contrary to the often-made assertion of libertarians, market failure does happen.

GabuEx

Balderdash, I say! There's never been a time in history when market failure has been demonstrated to occur. And the 1930's never happened, so don't even bring that song and dance up!Theokhoth

I've brought up the Great Depression with anarcho-capitalists before; the answer I always get back is that, somehow, it was still the fault of too much government regulation, and that if only the government had interfered even less, everything would've been fine.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I remember I had a brief time a while back in college when I flirted with libertarianism because it all sounds well and good on paper... then I thought better of it when I got better acquainted with reality... :P

The invisible hand of the market is all well and good until you get into a situation in which market failure - the inability of individuals acting in their own interest to arrive at the most optimal situation for all parties - is an inevitability. And contrary to the often-made assertion of libertarians, market failure does happen.

Theokhoth

The market, this is such a mystified concept.

what? don't you understand the entire monetary system is temporary, we need an entire global overhaul of society (if we want a prolonged, stable world to live in) The system we have now is evidently becoming obsolete.

In essence we are running the country(and much of the world) on a machine that is really starting to show its age, and has become beneficial only to a select few, Its time we evolve it.

Anarchism always fails. In the best situations anarchism evolves into a good governing system, or keeps an easily abused status Quo.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]The Libertarians that have come up for election have been in favor of getting rid of all government regulation - including anti-trust laws.

No thanks.carrot-cake

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]The Libertarians that have come up for election have been in favor of getting rid of all government regulation - including anti-trust laws.

No thanks.IWKYB

You sir created a contradiction. :)

Anarchism always fails. In the best situations anarchism evolves into a good governing system, or keeps an easily abused status Quo.

lyeti

Libertarianism requires a government that protects the rights of its people, mantain an army, and etc. Anarchism doesn't. :|

[QUOTE="lyeti"]

Anarchism always fails. In the best situations anarchism evolves into a good governing system, or keeps an easily abused status Quo.

leviathan91

Libertarianism requires a government that protects the rights of its people, mantain an army, and etc. Anarchism doesn't. :|

In other words, everything is based on the truth and accountability of the individual.

sboyer2

I lol'd. If only humans could understand that concept.

Libertarianism:

The political party that believes that the government should only be responsible for protecting citizen's physical property, including their lives.

Thoughts?

sboyer2

This is just backwards to me. America had a government like that once under the Articles of Confederation and it flopped. Generally I find that Libertarians are good at telling you what they're against but don't seem to stand for anything. Libertarianism just isn't practical in terms of a functioning society.

In other words, everything is based on the truth and accountability of the individual.

sboyer2

I would think if we've learned anything from history it's that people are... you know. (Language warning)

[QUOTE="sboyer2"]

Libertarianism:

The political party that believes that the government should only be responsible for protecting citizen's physical property, including their lives.

Thoughts?

QuistisTrepe_

This is just backwards to me. America had a government like that once under the Articles of Confederation and it flopped. Generally I find that Libertarians are good at telling you what they're against but don't seem to stand for anything. Libertarianism just isn't practical in terms of a functioning society.

Again, with the Ayn Rand quote in your sig, I am sitting here wondering if I have gone insane. That's twice in two days. Stop hurting my sanity.

[QUOTE="lyeti"]

Anarchism always fails. In the best situations anarchism evolves into a good governing system, or keeps an easily abused status Quo.

leviathan91

Libertarianism requires a government that protects the rights of its people, mantain an army, and etc. Anarchism doesn't. :|

Libertarianism is made on the principles than an unregulated society and lax laws (business, gun law, etc,) would make the country better. It believes that individuals are good enough/intelligent enough/calm enough to co-exist peacefully with(in) society: the same as anarchy even though it is obviously utterly impossible in a realistic setting. It seeks to get rid of government corruption and failures, yet the only thing you're going to get rid of is parking tickets (even though they serve a vital purpose,) and other things which normal people consider "minor" but which are usually quite important to make society work the way it is.

So you will stop governments from doing petty laws, yet the main areas of government are welfare, healthcare, maintenance, utilities, development, planning, military and law. Which will all remain in their current form or in a slightly watered down form but the corruption and failures that the government had before libertarians would still be there. Libertarians are like anarchists, communists or fascists: good idea, f**ks up big-time in real life. Libertarianism promises the bests of anarchism (individuality) with the structure and organisation of current governments, yet conveniently ignores the fact that all it will do is change a lot of the small stuff, A.K.A: make it worse and be more lax on the big problems, which would make them worse as well.

In any case libertarian future is never going to happen, thanks to the conservatives (they do serve many purposes.) Conservatives are the most stable political leadership, but often they are too slow compared to the rate of change in the real world. The liberals can be a lot better than conservatives but they are also full of ideas which do not fit reality and usually fail. So I guess the libertarians aren't doing anything different than other political parties, but the libertarian ideals are clearer and as such the public can see that its going to fail.

Why wouldn't society want this? Democrats and Republicans are too focused on benefitting themselves and other agendas....

Libertarianism is only party which actually believes in true freedom...which our country is supposedly based on.

Thoughts?sboyer2

It seems like you're too focused on promoting your ideology and not fairly evaluating the ideological and partisan grounds of others.

Again, with the Ayn Rand quote in your sig, I am sitting here wondering if I have gone insane. That's twice in two days. Stop hurting my sanity.

Theokhoth

You're making a lot of assumptions. Libertarianism =/= Objectivism.

I've actually been recently coming to the conclusion that I just might be a Libertarian. I'm not sure though. I've been all over the place lately with my beliefs.t3hrubikscube

Libertarianism:

The political party that believes that the government should only be responsible for protecting citizen's physical property, including their lives.

Everything else is up to the individual and their personal desires/choides, including abortion, gun rights, drug use, gay marriage, charity, censorshipsboyer2

What a lovely idea! So I get to set up a government, and my only mandates are to protect individuals lives and property? I can probably create a government so small it makes the United States government look tiny by comparison! Sounds easy right?

Well no, those are two of the most complicated things to protect. Apart from obvious jobs like defence, policing and a legal system, there is an insane amount of governance done to make sure people are kept safe, and their possessions kept safe.

Think, for example, of agencies like the FDA, which is designed to protect public health and ensure the quality of food, or the massive US Department of Transportation, which ensures that all US citizens are provided the safest transportation systems possible.

Or even something like the US SEC, which is designed to catch fraud and malfeasance which would cheat citizens out of their currency and property? Libertarianism is a very nice idea on paper, but it just isn't practical.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

[QUOTE="lyeti"]

Anarchism always fails. In the best situations anarchism evolves into a good governing system, or keeps an easily abused status Quo.

Theokhoth

Libertarianism requires a government that protects the rights of its people, mantain an army, and etc. Anarchism doesn't. :|

Kind of over-simplified. Arguing for more limited government is not at all an advocation of no government. While libertarians may view the role that government should play in sociey to be more limited than what you agree with, it doesn't make the existence of government self contradictory with libertarianism. It just happens to strike a different balance than you prefer. Many libertarians realize what government is there for. Much of what the government does is what libertarians typically consider to be unnecessary and harmful. A large government, at least to the extent which is currently the case in the U.S. is not necessary to protect the rights of the people. Libertarians argue that the government could be significantly smaller while equally protecting the rights and property of the people by removing rather large amounts of government activity that do neither. In summation, your post is baseless as it assumes that government needs to be large in order to perform the functions that it should.

I in fact do prefer libertarian policies generally. I find most of their political arguments tend to be very logically sound, and tend to be pragmatically beneficial to society. Ayn Rand kinda ****es me off for some reason though.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Again, with the Ayn Rand quote in your sig, I am sitting here wondering if I have gone insane. That's twice in two days. Stop hurting my sanity.

QuistisTrepe_

You're making a lot of assumptions. Libertarianism =/= Objectivism.

I in fact do prefer libertarian policies generally. I find most of their political arguments tend to be very logically sound, and tend to be pragmatically beneficial to society. Ayn Rand kinda ****es me off for some reason though.

coolbeans90

The problem with libertarianism is that they don't take into account that the political power can be replaced by an equally fascist economical power. Which is basically what happens.kuraimen

Not really. The ONLY case where that happens is in industries with very high barriers to entry in the market.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]

Libertarianism requires a government that protects the rights of its people, mantain an army, and etc. Anarchism doesn't. :|

coolbeans90

Kind of over-simplified. Arguing for more limited government is not at all an advocation of no government. While libertarians may view the role that government should play in sociey to be more limited than what you agree with, it doesn't make the existence of government self contradictory with libertarianism.

You misread me. I said that when you start trying to define and lay out the rights of the people, and what constitutes protection of those rights, then if you're consistent with your own philosophy then a libertarian government will have to be fairly large in order to protect the rights laid out--thus, big government, the opposite of libertarianism.

It just happens to strike a different balance than you prefer. Many libertarians realize what government is there for.

I don't think they do.

Much of what the government does is what libertarians typically consider to be unnecessary and harmful.

Hence why I don't think libertarians are aware of what the government is there for.

A large government, at least to the extent which is currently the case in the U.S. is not necessary to protect the rights of the people.

I disagree.

Libertarians argue that the government could be significantly smaller while equally protecting the rights and property of the people by removing rather large amounts of government activity that do neither. In summation, your post is baseless as it assumes that government needs to be large in order to perform the functions that it should.

If the government's purpose is to protect rights, then the government needs to have power in order to secure those rights for the people, unless the people have few rights to begin with, or unless it is NOT the government's purpose to protect rights.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Again, with the Ayn Rand quote in your sig, I am sitting here wondering if I have gone insane. That's twice in two days. Stop hurting my sanity.

Theokhoth

You're making a lot of assumptions. Libertarianism =/= Objectivism.

You really don't know what you're talking about.:|

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

Q:Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: "Egalitarianism and Inflation," 1974]

AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They're a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can't be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it's a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I in fact do prefer libertarian policies generally. I find most of their political arguments tend to be very logically sound, and tend to be pragmatically beneficial to society. Ayn Rand kinda ****es me off for some reason though.

T_P_O

Eh, she struck me as overly dogmatic, not at all pragmatic. Those types bother me.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Again, with the Ayn Rand quote in your sig, I am sitting here wondering if I have gone insane. That's twice in two days. Stop hurting my sanity.

Theokhoth

You're making a lot of assumptions. Libertarianism =/= Objectivism.

Unfortunately, she had a great influence on modern libertarianism. It is true.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I in fact do prefer libertarian policies generally. I find most of their political arguments tend to be very logically sound, and tend to be pragmatically beneficial to society. Ayn Rand kinda ****es me off for some reason though.

coolbeans90

Eh, she struck me as overly dogmatic, not at all pragmatic. Those types bother me.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

You're making a lot of assumptions. Libertarianism =/= Objectivism.

QuistisTrepe_

You really don't know what you're talking about.:|

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

Q:Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: "Egalitarianism and Inflation," 1974]

AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They're a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can't be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it's a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

That's not a difference in policy, but a difference in technique. :| I know quite well what I'm talking about. :| It even says in that quote--twice--that their ideas are essentially the same. They go about it in different ways.