Just What is Libertarianism?

My experience of the average liberal is that they cannot imagine a solution to a problem that doesn't involve the police powers of the state. People are generally too stupid to take care of themselves and their families, and so they need benevolent bureaucrats to oversee their lives. Libertarians, being more imaginative, thoughtful, and oriented toward non-government solutions to problems, scare the daylights out of liberals. As for the "I've got mine mentality", I don't know very few wealthy libertarians, and the ones that are always willing to write checks to help people when asked.

 

I agree for the most part with your whole statement. I would just like to add that I find it funny, that many liberals think that people who want the government to stay out of peoples lives are "greedy"? I think everyone should be allowed their liberty, I think everyone should be allowed to keep more of the fruits of their labor... how is that greedy? Because I don't think using force to take from one to give to whomever the politicians deem worthy, I am greedy? Well than so be it, I guess wanting to use force to take from a group and give to another is altruistic... guess Might really does make right, as well as charitable, caring, and just a good person!

 

it is as you described, a philosophy that holds individual liberty as it's primary objective. To me that means self ownership, I own my body and it is mine to do what I choose with it, even if that thing I choose to do is the wrong choice, like abusing myself with drugs. I do not however own other bodies, so I do not have a right to do what harms others, so crimes like theft and assault are still criminal acts under the libertarian philosophy

As for Rand Paul, he is not a libertarian

his stance on abortion is not the general libertarian position, but it can be argued that a fetus should be seen as its own individual whose rights should be protected under the law (not a position I personally agree with)

However, his position on same sex marriage cannot be defended as the position of a libertarian in any sense. If you are someone who advocates for liberty, supporting same sex marriage is pretty basic. And I as a registered libertarian feel libertarians should reject Rand Paul until he changes this position

then it is the creator's authority to judge what they do with these rights, not the government's

 

have someone explain atheism to you.

 

[video=youtube;EX_aC_KxYLs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX_aC_KxYLs[/video]

He spends the first good chunk of the show bagging on panhandlers. Then pretty much the rest of the show he bags on everyone else in America with the message, "If you have gotten help in any way from any other person or entity, you are a completely worthless individual."

Which is BS.

He does make a few decent points especially about subsidies, but comes off so self righteous and arrogant about it.

And for those of you who think that I, being a liberal means I'm some sort of commie socialist bent on destroying the nation with handouts, modern Democrats look like Reagan era Republicans, and I'm not even remotely exaggerating about that.

 

No. You probably have good intentions. However, like your religious conservative counterpart, you believe that your morals are so superiors that they ought to be forced on everyone else.

 

Authoritarians (both republican and democrat) make laws that reduce our essential Liberties. They are the antithesis of Libertarians. They make laws like:

- prohibiting the sale and purchase of Big Gulps (and other items they deem to be 'dangerous' to The People)
- prohibiting the union of homosexuals.
- prohibiting abortions.
- forcing the purchase of health insurance.
- etc...

Authoritarians (liberal, conservative, republican, democrat) are the enemy of Liberty. Liberty is the goal of the American experiment.

 

Libertarianism is the radical philosophy that other people are not your property.

That is why people hate it.

Most people wish to possess and control others.

 

Their is a possessive pronoun.

This means each man identifies his own creator and owns said creator.

It is not a reference to a specific deity but to the supremecy of individual liberty.

 

Libertarianism was never debunked it was in fact proven superior to the modern mess we live in.

The jungle was biased opinion not documented fact.

 

I have always said that, in order to interpret this as it was meant, you could replace '...endowed by their Creator...' with '...born with...'. You are correct though, the INDIVIDUAL defines who 'their Creator' is, be it some supreme deity, or simply their parents. The men who wrote that simply meant that everyone has certain inherent rights at birth, and that government must recognize those rights and protect them.

 

Exactly right.

 

Sure it is, if you confuse liberty with license.

Well gosharootie. Who knew slaves own their masters?

So it's your view that was written is not what was meant. Right?

Anybody who thinks his unalienable rights are an endowment from his parents has a serious psychological problem.

If that's all they meant, how come that's not all they wrote?

 

No, they meant what they wrote.

And some might say that anyone who believes in some supreme, all-seeing sky fairy has serious psychological problems as well. The founders recognized that not all people will hold the same beliefs as they did. In my opinion, they purposefully used '...their Creator...' instead of '...God...' because of their focus on the individual's right to choose who he believes his own Creator to be. That even if they chose not to believe in a god, everyone is still endowed with these certain unalienable rights that are not granted by government, but are recognized and protected by (and from) government.

The question I was answering was specifically about that one sentence. It's particular meaning is simple, but it's not all inclusive.

 

It never seems to dawn on them that those who exercise power never remain benevolent much beyond their first inconvenience.

 

So...

He's not a libertarian because he doesn't tow the LP party line 100%?

Is that seriously your contention?

Does anyone, 100%, tow a particular party line?

 

Well, there's Ted Cruz....

 

Will you please point out a specific time frame in the 40 minutes that has relevance opposed to what I said? I'm not going to waste 40 minutes.

 

We agree for the most part. I disagree with the abortion part. I believe someone needs to defend innocent life that is helpless to defend itself. That's a different debate however, and even the platform at lp.org recognizes differing opinions in that topic.

 

While I cannot imagine ANYONE being "in favor" of abortions (except perhaps those who profit from administering them) I can not pretend that simple government imposed prohibition of them is, in any meaningful way, going to mitigate their demand or their frequency. We have seen how government prohibition of items in large demand has miserably failed over and over again, and those who fail to learn from history tend to repeat it. A different debate for a different thread, I agree.

But more to my point: It is the authoritarians who impose THEIR notion of "morality" on everyone through the strong-arm force of government. Libertarian belief is directly counter to that. One group enforcing THEIR notion of "morality" on everyone else should not be government's role.

 

It's always impressive when someone can brazenly contradict himself with a perfectly straight face.

What's missing, of course, is any reason for a sane person to care.

When one merely notes that in the immediately preceding clause it is stated that all men are created equal, which then makes it perfectly natural to refer to the Creator, your interpretation is exposed as laughably self-serving.

And evidently obnoxious to you.

 

Well being that your mom created you (with a donation of genetic materials from your dad) I guess it means that she endowed you with rights. The Founders also had the forethought to include clones (who would have their rights endowed by the scientists and/or lab equipment that created them).

 

Until more is known, I think retaining it as a social stigma is adequate.

 

She did no such thing, obviously.

 

That's hilarious. So the "good libertarians" are the ones who agree with conservatives, even though conservatives tend to disagree with libertarian beliefs when it comes to anything other than the fiscal realm. I supposes these "good libertarians" are the "libertarians" who agree with banning gay marriage and bombing third world dirt farms, both views of which go directly against the basic libertarian beliefs of individual freedom and non-interventionism. Those "libertarians" are often social conservatives who think calling themselves "libertarian" means they're bad boy conservatives who left the party after Bush. Basically they're the people that murdered the libertarian rising that was the TEA party right at the start and transformed it into what it is today; a crazy train wreck of super social conservatives.

As for your second libertarian, the anti-christian liberal who doesn't want to pay taxes, haven't seen them before. Seems like it wouldn't work out so well being anti-tax and pro give money to the poor...

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, I figured you were born like everyone else. My bad.