Any of you define yourselves as Libertarians?

  • News
  • Thread starter 1MileCrash
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation revolves around the concept of libertarianism and its various interpretations. There is a discussion about how some people define libertarianism as being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, while others have different interpretations. Some mention how libertarians believe in limited government intervention, while others bring up their own personal beliefs and experiences with the ideology. The conversation also touches on the difficulty of defining and categorizing libertarians, as well as the potential for conflicting beliefs within the libertarian community.
  • #36
arildno said:
Rand makes the same mistake as communists:

She doesn't take into account grubby, dirty reality:

Communists fantasized about strictly altruistic human beings who didn't bother about who happens, at a particular transaction to get "the most", being equally willing to pull the shortest straw the next time.

Rand fantasizes about the strictly rational, self-serving individual, unfrightened by the individuality of The Other, and makes her philophy on basis of that.


To both of these movements, the following line is most apt:
It ain't necessarily so.
You forget a very important part of this: Communism's success is dependent on the premise of everyone being completely altruistic, while free-market capitalism's success is not dependent on everyone being completely self-interested and rational.

If society happens to be a mixture of semi-altruistic and self-interested individuals, which it is, that completely precludes the success of communism, but as can be seen around the world, capitalism thrives. And it's not hard to see why that's the case.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Al68 said:
LOL. I was referring to the U.S. economy during its first ~150 years. And I was using the term "libertarian" relatively, ie relative to other nations historically.

Sure there are "swindlers" that will always take advantage of freedom. But it's absurd to say that the purpose of economic freedom is to allow swindlers to take advantage of it.
Citing economic "freedom" in such cases is silly. If there are loopholes, there will always be a huge population of crooks to benefit from them. US laws are written by lobbyists whose only mission in life is to create such loopholes. Do you not know this?
Face-palm moment.
 
  • #38
turbo-1 said:
Citing economic "freedom" in such cases is silly. If there are loopholes, there will always be a huge population of crooks to benefit from them. US laws are written by lobbyists whose only mission in life is to create such loopholes. Do you not know this?
What are you talking about? Citing economic freedom is silly? This thread is about libertarianism.

I was responding to a claim that libertarianism is beneficial to "swindlers". Did you misread my post?

What "loopholes" are you even referring to? I wasn't talking about crooks benefiting from any loopholes, I was referring to them taking advantage of the same economic freedom that everyone else would have in a libertarian society. And my point was that that was no justification for depriving everyone of such freedom.
 
  • #39
Technically I fall pretty close to libertarian positions, but I am a naive anarchist. The individual is the most important part of society, the good of the one, collectively, would naively be expected to lead to good for all.

If everyone followed the golden rule, anarchy might be functional.

I recognize that this isn't likely to happen, so I grumble, and rant now and then when prodded.

Re: Rand

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
 
  • #40
Al68 said:
You forget a very important part of this: Communism's success is dependent on the premise of everyone being completely altruistic, while free-market capitalism's success is not dependent on everyone being completely self-interested and rational.

If society happens to be a mixture of semi-altruistic and self-interested individuals, which it is, that completely precludes the success of communism, but as can be seen around the world, capitalism thrives. And it's not hard to see why that's the case.

While capitalism might be said to be a necessary condition for democracy/rights-based state, the converse is by no means true.

You can have quite autoritarian&undemocratic societies that still can be said to have a free-market economy.

And, it is NOT the latter type of society Rand advocates, but the type of society her vision of society will easily degenerate into in practice.

Thus, her vision is self-destructive.
 
  • #41
arildno said:
To expect on a theoretical level, that sufficient numbers of people by themselves will refuse to undignify themselves is a wholly unargued-for position, and its truth is highly suspect.

Yet, it remains a basic, unstated premise in Rand's conception that the willingness to be free is a naturally widespread emotion/attitude.

An interesting quote I once read is, "Only a few prefer liberty. The majority desire nothing more than kind masters."
 
  • #42
Communism, IMO, is just a fantasy system that does not take into account reality. Even if everyone had a heart of gold and was of solid moral character, communism still would not work, because there would be no way to know how to ration anything for the economy.

All attempts at a communist society degenerate into a socialist system, with a centrally-planned economy. And a centrally-planned economy is highly inefficient. In a market, you have millions of interconnected prices, representing supply and demand. Prices constantly fluctuate. If one price shifts, this automatically causes millions of other prices to change as well. Of course, EACH of those millions of other prices fluctuating influences one another and even more prices.

A central planner in an economy must mathematically try to figure out the same things that a freely-fluctuating price system does automatically in a free-market, and thus the task is impossible. The calculations become insanely complex.

It would take a monumental bureaucracy alone just to allocate food to a city like London or New York, if done with central planning (and that's just one city!). When Gorbachev visited London, he asked Margaret Thatcher, "How do you see to it that people get food?" Of course she didn't, the price system and private sector did that.

This lack of allocation also leads to the individual enterprises within a centrally-planned system producing a lot of unnecessary stuff. Imagine for example Sony producing its own tires, trucks, tools, machine parts, etc...simply because it knows it cannot rely on the parts of the economy responsible for these things to produce them in quantity needed.

This leads to shoddy quality everything, including the things they are charged with building originally (say televisions and cameras).

So even with hearts of gold, any attempt at a communist system, which leads to a socialist system, is still going to be highly inefficient. And that's also ignoring that to create a socialist system, you need force. At most, a centrally-planned economy with everyone having hearts of gold just would lack the massive corruption systems like the Soviet Union experienced.
 
  • #43
Proton Soup said:
Some would even claim that the primary function of our military is pump money into the high tech sectors of our economy to stimulate industrial innovation.

I would argue/claim that. A lot of the high-tech stuff we have today ultimately came from discoveries from research funded by DARPA, which the free-market was then able to take advantage of to build into all of the goodies we have today.
 
  • #44
Proton: Let's have a another look at the degree of government involvement in history US development. Though state and federal government of course funds much of the public works and contributes heavily to R&D, government itself builds (your word) little or nothing in the US, relative to the size and scope of US infrastructure. That includes sewers and water works. Commercial nuclear power in the US was almost completely constructed by Westinghouse, GE, Bechtel and the like and most of the plant funding came from the utility companies; the first commercial reactor in the US (Shippingport) was managed by Duquesne Light Company in 1957. Most of the satellites are built by and launched on rockets built by Lockheed Martin, Boeing or their ancestors, not NASA.
 
  • #45
mheslep said:
Proton: Let's have a another look at the degree of government involvement in history US development. Though state and federal government of course funds much of the public works and contributes heavily to R&D, government itself builds (your word) little or nothing in the US, relative to the size and scope of US infrastructure. That includes sewers and water works. Commercial nuclear power in the US was almost completely constructed by Westinghouse, GE, Bechtel and the like and most of the plant funding came from the utility companies; the first commercial reactor in the US (Shippingport) was managed by Duquesne Light Company in 1957. Most of the satellites are built by and launched on rockets built by Lockheed Martin, Boeing or their ancestors, not NASA.

:rolleyes: now you're just being tedious.
 
  • #46
CAC1001 said:
An interesting quote I once read is, "Only a few prefer liberty. The majority desire nothing more than kind masters."

Hmm..I'd rather say that the vast majority of us prefer life to death, non-pain over pain.

Precisely because most of us wish to be mostly free, we would prefer to submit to a master we thought was kind (i.e, someone who let's us do what we want to do. Mostly), rather than risk death or a lot of pain by not submitting in that manner.
 
  • #47
Proton Soup said:
:rolleyes: now you're just being tedious.
Maybe so, if you mean your larger point was that government has had some roll in many aspects of US infrastructure and technology development. But if by that response you mean that your larger point is, well, the government has done most of the important things and the private sector, well, it sells t-shirts and rips people off, then your larger point is wrong, not even close.
 
  • #48
mheslep said:
Maybe so, if you mean your larger point was that government has had some roll in many aspects of US infrastructure and technology development. But if by that response you mean that your larger point is, well, the government has done most of the important things and the private sector, well, it sells t-shirts and rips people off, then your larger point is wrong, not even close.

i mean this: i reject the notion of idealized libertarianism just as i reject communism. there are roles for government and private enterprise, collectivism and individualism. somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot that balances out the benefits of the extremes. some cultures may place a bit more value on one end of the spectrum versus the other, and that is OK, too.

but libertarianism itself is a unicorn. and my rejection of it is certainly no reason to assume that i support the notion of its opposite. my point is simply that big things tend to get done by central authorities. these big projects tend to provide an environment in which free enterprise is able to thrive. the boondoggle of the transcontinental railroad and the interstate hwy system are a couple of my favorites. to me, they are like previous versions of the internet.
 
  • #49
Proton Soup said:
i mean this: i reject the notion of idealized libertarianism just as i reject communism. there are roles for government and private enterprise, collectivism and individualism. somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot that balances out the benefits of the extremes. some cultures may place a bit more value on one end of the spectrum versus the other, and that is OK, too.

but libertarianism itself is a unicorn. and my rejection of it is certainly no reason to assume that i support the notion of its opposite.
Fair enough, I'm with you on most of that.

my point is simply that big things tend to get done by central authorities. these big projects tend to provide an environment in which free enterprise is able to thrive. the boondoggle of the transcontinental railroad and the interstate hwy system are a couple of my favorites. to me, they are like previous versions of the internet.
Depends I suppose on the definition of a 'project'. If one looks at the scope of 'big' enterprises in the US, certainly the government has had its share, certainly all the military operation, but then so does private enterprise, collectively. The internet as we know it today for instance was far from either being constructed by or funded by a central authority. Every decade or so Boeing or the like comes out with another aircraft far more advanced than prior models and requiring $10-20 billion in development, etc, etc.
 
  • #50
arildno said:
While capitalism might be said to be a necessary condition for democracy/rights-based state, the converse is by no means true.

You can have quite autoritarian&undemocratic societies that still can be said to have a free-market economy.
A free-market economy by definition is not economically authoritarian. If you mean authoritarian on social issues, then I agree, but don't see the relevance. And historically, social oppression tends to accompany economic oppression, not economic libertarianism.
And, it is NOT the latter type of society Rand advocates, but the type of society her vision of society will easily degenerate into in practice.

Thus, her vision is self-destructive.
Any evidence to support such an absurd claim that history does not support?

And you seem to have a huge conceptual misunderstanding of what Rand, and economic libertarians advocate. We do not advocate a particular type of society, or changing, shaping, or controlling society. That's the whole point. We believe in peaceful co-existence, not government coercion to shape society into whatever mold is preferred.

But both history and basic logic tell us that economic freedom leads to prosperity, and economic oppression leads to poverty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #51
Proton Soup said:
i mean this: i reject the notion of idealized libertarianism just as i reject communism. there are roles for government and private enterprise, collectivism and individualism. somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot that balances out the benefits of the extremes. some cultures may place a bit more value on one end of the spectrum versus the other, and that is OK, too.

but libertarianism itself is a unicorn. and my rejection of it is certainly no reason to assume that i support the notion of its opposite. my point is simply that big things tend to get done by central authorities. these big projects tend to provide an environment in which free enterprise is able to thrive. the boondoggle of the transcontinental railroad and the interstate hwy system are a couple of my favorites. to me, they are like previous versions of the internet.
It sounds to me like you are using the term "idealized libertarianism" to refer to anarchism instead of what most call libertarianism.

Your examples of the interstate hwy system and railroad are not examples of communism, or "somewhere in the middle". In fact, building roads is probably the most libertarian thing government does, since they are funded by the road tax (fuel tax), which is only required to be paid when buying fuel for on-road use, or by tolls. Providing a service for a fee is not communism or "somewhere in the middle". It's what libertarian governments do.

Someone who is against government building roads is an anarchist, not a libertarian.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
Technically anarchist ideologies cover a pretty broad spread, anarcho-syndicalist, anarcho-capitalist, naive anarchists such as myself, and more.

It is definitely something of a unicorn idea though.
 
  • #53
Proton Soup said:
these big projects tend to provide an environment in which free enterprise is able to thrive. the boondoggle of the transcontinental railroad and the interstate hwy system are a couple of my favorites. to me, they are like previous versions of the internet.

If you study the history of American railroads, you will find a lot of the really crappy (for lack of a better word) lines were the ones funded to some degree by government (in terms of how the tracks were laid out, their quality, etc...); the more quality rail lines were the strictly private ones.
 
  • #54
Al68 said:
Someone who is against government building roads is an anarchist, not a libertarian.
Anarchist? Hardly. Someone who argues against such action by the US federal government argues for federalism in the original form, at the least.

President Madison, veto of the Internal Improvements Bill, March 3, 1817:
http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm
Madison said:
To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
 
  • #55
mheslep said:
Anarchist? Hardly. Someone who argues against such action by the US federal government argues for federalism in the original form, at the least.

You surely recognize that those positions are compatible?
 
  • #56
Al68 said:
Your examples of the interstate hwy system and railroad are not examples of communism, or "somewhere in the middle". In fact, building roads is probably the most libertarian thing government does, since they are funded by the road tax (fuel tax), which is only required to be paid when buying fuel for on-road use, or by tolls. Providing a service for a fee is not communism or "somewhere in the middle". It's what libertarian governments do.
I think what is a good solution for road use is a little difficult to extend to other services provided by the Government. What's an appropriate way to seek payment for providing a national defense, or a fire service?
 
  • #57
CRGreathouse said:
You surely recognize that those positions are compatible?
Surely not. One can't have the word 'government' in a positive sense, especially not a Federal one, in the opening description of anarchism, despite all its variations.
 
  • #58
mheslep said:
Al68 said:
Someone who is against government building roads is an anarchist, not a libertarian.
Anarchist? Hardly. Someone who argues against such action by the US federal government argues for federalism in the original form, at the least.
Sure, but that's an argument about which government has jurisdiction, not whether government should build roads. The states are the government.

Madison's argument was just what [STRIKE]-is-[/STRIKE] should be obvious to anyone who ever read the constitution: The U.S. is a nation of states, not a nation state. The federal government legally has only the powers delegated to it by the states.

But I'll rephrase my statement: Someone who is against any government building roads is an anarchist, not a libertarian.
 
  • #59
Al68 said:
But I'll rephrase my statement: Someone who is against any government building roads is an anarchist, not a libertarian.
Fair enough
 
  • #60
mheslep said:
Surely not. One can't have the word 'government' in a positive sense, especially not a Federal one, in the opening description of anarchism, despite all its variations.

Your statement involved the Federal government, the other didn't.
 
  • #61
Gokul43201 said:
I think what is a good solution for road use is a little difficult to extend to other services provided by the Government.
Of course, but I just thought it was ironic to use the most libertarian thing government does as an example of non-libertarianism.
What's an appropriate way to seek payment for providing a national defense, or a fire service?
Well, that's debatable, but I think the current practice of using property taxes for fire services is pretty decent, since the value of having it available is related to the value of the house. Of course they could just send the tab for services rendered post-event, but trying to collect on them would cost more than putting out the fires.

National defense is trickier, because while its value is certainly greater for some than others, its greatest value is protecting our liberty, not our material wealth. But since we can't put a price on liberty, we have to consider material wealth.

That being said, there are many alternatives to violating everyone's right to privacy by demanding that everyone disclose their personal finances to government. But that subject would need its own thread.
 
  • #62
turbo-1 said:
Socially liberal, and fiscally conservative (to an extreme) would brand me as a Libertarian, but the brand has been co-opted by neo-cons...
Oh, stop it now. That one had me spewing Pepsi out of my nose. :yuck:

Did you even see some of the choices on the quiz:

End welfare programs.
Privatize social security.
Cut taxes and spending by 50% or more.

That's (economic) libertarianism. That's fiscal conservatism (to an extreme). But I have no doubt you know this already.

"Neocons" didn't co-opt the libertarian "brand", you have co-opted the word "neocon" to use it as a synonym for anyone even slightly libertarian.
 
  • #63
CRGreathouse said:
Your statement involved the Federal government, the other didn't.
The other statement by Al was about a "government building roads", which clearly the Federal government does.
 
  • #64
Al68 said:
That being said, there are many alternatives to violating everyone's right to privacy by demanding that everyone disclose their personal finances to government. But that subject would need its own thread.
It's a subject I find interesting. I'll start a new thread when I have a little more time.
 
  • #65
I scored squarely as a Libertarian on the little test.

Al68 said:
How about the most libertarian nation in history going from literally nothing to the greatest power in the history of the world in less than 150 years with virtually no economic regulation or income taxes?
The greatest power/empire in the history of the world was, arguably, the Roman Empire. It persisted for about 1000 years. The US has been a great power for about 65 years.

There have been other truly great powers far exceeding the US. The point being that libertarianism is not necessarily the way to becoming a great power. The US became a great power in the 1940's because of its nation-wide mobilisation of massive manpower and exploitation of local natural resources in the face of certain aggression.

Did social security, collective bargaining, a minimum wage and maximum work week, the civil rights act and other social programs and mandates (like women voting, and the abolition of slavery, etc.) make the US a great place to live? I don't see how one could argue otherwise.

The thing is that programs which increase the freedom of the poor and downtrodden are not anti- libertarian. In fact, they are quite consistent with the spirit of libertarianism.

Al68 said:
Are you unaware that the U.S. was the biggest and most successful libertarian experiment in istory?
I'm not so sure that that's the most accurate way to characterize it. Imho, the US is a great place to live mostly because of federal programs which have blocked our natural tendency to exploit the disadvantaged.

.
 
  • #66
ThomasT said:
I scored squarely as a Libertarian on the little test.

The greatest power/empire in the history of the world was, arguably, the Roman Empire.
In the the history of the ancient world.
It persisted for about 1000 years. The US has been a great power for about 65 years.

There have been other truly great powers far exceeding the US.
The United States is the greatest economic and military power in the history of the world. Prior to the US, Great Britain was the greatest economic and military power in the history of the world, and hence the phrase "the sun never sets on the British Empire."

ThomasT said:
The thing is that programs which increase the freedom of the poor and downtrodden are not anti- libertarian. In fact, they are quite consistent with the spirit of libertarianism.
If the program is run by the government, force-ably transferring money from one party to another it is be definition anti-libertarian.
 
  • #67
mheslep said:
If the program is run by the government, force-ably transferring money from one party to another it is be definition anti-libertarian.
The enlightened libertarian doesn't have to be forced to share his wealth with those less fortunate, because he knows how doing so benefits him. But most of us aren't very enlightened.
 
  • #68
ThomasT said:
Did social security, collective bargaining, a minimum wage and maximum work week, the civil rights act and other social programs and mandates (like women voting, and the abolition of slavery, etc.) make the US a great place to live? I don't see how one could argue otherwise.

I would not argue that collective bargaining or the minimum wage made America a nice place to live, with the exception of very early on in the history of collective bargaining.

ThomasT said:
The thing is that programs which increase the freedom of the poor and downtrodden are not anti- libertarian. In fact, they are quite consistent with the spirit of libertarianism.

In addition to being funded ultimately through force and coercion, a lot of government programs do not increase the freedom of the poor an downtrodden; if anything, they enslave them.

ThomasT said:
The enlightened libertarian doesn't have to be forced to share his wealth with those less fortunate, because he knows how doing so benefits him. But most of us aren't very enlightened.

The American people are extraordinarily charitable.
 
  • #69
CAC1001 said:
I would not argue that collective bargaining or the minimum wage made America a nice place to live, with the exception of very early on in the history of collective bargaining.

The American people are extraordinarily charitable.
If you think that American people are extraordinarily charitable, they you have not been on the receiving on of wage-cuts and benefits cuts when your employer is making record profits. I have watched it happen over and over again. American management is generally mercenary in the extreme, because every every concession they can wring from their work-force comes back to them in bonuses and cheap stock-options. It is easier to corrupt a handful of people with a bag of money than you might expect.
 
  • #70
Businesses are not charities. CAC1001 is completely correct, the American people are extraordinary charitable with their own pocket money relative to other nations.
 
<h2>1. What is a Libertarian?</h2><p>A Libertarian is someone who believes in individual liberty and limited government intervention in both personal and economic matters. They prioritize personal freedom and the free market, and advocate for minimal government involvement in the lives of citizens.</p><h2>2. How is Libertarianism different from other political ideologies?</h2><p>Unlike other political ideologies, Libertarians believe in a strict adherence to individual rights and personal freedom, and reject the idea of a strong central government. They also prioritize free market principles and limited government intervention in economic matters.</p><h2>3. Do Libertarians believe in any government at all?</h2><p>Yes, Libertarians believe in a limited government that is solely responsible for protecting the rights and freedoms of its citizens. This includes maintaining a military for national defense, providing a justice system, and protecting individual rights such as free speech and property rights.</p><h2>4. What are some common misconceptions about Libertarianism?</h2><p>One common misconception is that Libertarians are anarchists who believe in no government at all. Another is that they are solely focused on economic freedom and do not care about social issues. In reality, Libertarians believe in a small government that protects both personal and economic freedoms.</p><h2>5. How do Libertarians view taxation?</h2><p>Libertarians believe in minimal taxation, as they believe that individuals should have the right to keep the fruits of their labor. They also advocate for a flat tax or consumption tax, rather than a progressive income tax, to reduce government involvement in the economy.</p>

1. What is a Libertarian?

A Libertarian is someone who believes in individual liberty and limited government intervention in both personal and economic matters. They prioritize personal freedom and the free market, and advocate for minimal government involvement in the lives of citizens.

2. How is Libertarianism different from other political ideologies?

Unlike other political ideologies, Libertarians believe in a strict adherence to individual rights and personal freedom, and reject the idea of a strong central government. They also prioritize free market principles and limited government intervention in economic matters.

3. Do Libertarians believe in any government at all?

Yes, Libertarians believe in a limited government that is solely responsible for protecting the rights and freedoms of its citizens. This includes maintaining a military for national defense, providing a justice system, and protecting individual rights such as free speech and property rights.

4. What are some common misconceptions about Libertarianism?

One common misconception is that Libertarians are anarchists who believe in no government at all. Another is that they are solely focused on economic freedom and do not care about social issues. In reality, Libertarians believe in a small government that protects both personal and economic freedoms.

5. How do Libertarians view taxation?

Libertarians believe in minimal taxation, as they believe that individuals should have the right to keep the fruits of their labor. They also advocate for a flat tax or consumption tax, rather than a progressive income tax, to reduce government involvement in the economy.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
597
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
872
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
11K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
981
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
2K
Back
Top