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.
  • #1
1MileCrash
1,342
41
Just seeing if there are others out there on this board.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Mostly leftists on this board. They want the easy grant money.
 
  • #3
Depends how you define Libertarian. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Some people say this is Libertarian.
 
  • #4
DR13 said:
Depends how you define Libertarian. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Some people say this is Libertarian.

That is exactly how I'd define libertarian.
 
  • #5
Then yes, I am Libertarian. Some people also include things like Libertarians say that we should never engage in a war unless attacked (not like 9/11 attack but like by a real nation a la pearl harbor). Also, that Libertarians think that we should not send aid to other countries (goes with the theme of taking care of us first and not "wasting" money on others). I do not agree with these
 
  • #6
I am Libertarian. To the bone. And, not to start a debate, but not sending aid to other countries, I can see, when put that way, how could you possibly agree with not helping your neighbor? The only problem I have with it, is the "forced to help" part. Without a governing body making the decision that "everyone is going to help and pay taxes to help these guys or GTFO," I think enough people who are willing and able to help put together a charity to help out for whatever cause they believe in would certainly do so. But just because you and I want to help out the refugees in the mid east doesn't mean we should go tell the authority about the idea and force everyone to come alone and pay for it.
 
  • #7
I was the chairman of my local Libertarian Party for a few years, but I left that post a few years ago. I still consider myself a small-L libertarian, though I am fairly left-leaning. I believe government intervention should be the last resort in solving a problem, but I don't necessarily believe that government should NEVER intervene to solve a problem. I'm socially VERY liberal, and fiscally moderate, maybe slightly to the right of center.
 
  • #8
In my observation (for what it's worth), small 'l' libertarianism is a Rosarch blot, meaning radically different things to different people. Whether that's might-make-right, corporatism, Randism, anti-corporatism / individual freedomist, anarcho-syndicalism, or some weird fusion of (usually Christian) fundamentalism (a.k.a. anti-homosexuality / abortion / drugs, with full-out willingness to implement attendant legislation) and anti-regulation / taxation (a.k.a. pro-corporatism). The last one might seem ridiculous (or maybe not--again, showing the many faces of libertarianism or at least my 'understanding'), but the big-L Libertarian (Tom Tancredo) who has the best shot at actually winning anything this go-around is just such a creature.

There was a comic I saw a while back which motivated this post:
http://www.leftycartoons.com/the-24-types-of-libertarian/

And then someone else (maybe the same author?) came up with ones for progressives and authoritarians:
http://www.neatorama.com/2010/07/19/24-types-of-libertarians-vs-24-types-of-authoritarians/

Jack21222 (having been relatively somewhere up there on the LP hierarchy) will probably speak to the nugget of truth in the first comic, and the difficulty when it comes to getting down to brass tacks and actually herding "small-l" cats for "big-L" purposes.
 
  • #9
I used to be a libertarian when I thought freedom was all there was to life. I'm older now, I guess. I am now almost completely apolitical. I have no opinion on economics (I think most people who do don't know what they're talking about) and my social opinions lean towards liberal/libertarian (people should be able to be gay, worship spaghetti, do drugs, or otherwise engage in victimless activity).
 
  • #10
MATLABdude said:
In my observation (for what it's worth), small 'l' libertarianism is a Rosarch blot, meaning radically different things to different people. Whether that's might-make-right, corporatism, Randism, anti-corporatism / individual freedomist, anarcho-syndicalism, or some weird fusion of (usually Christian) fundamentalism (a.k.a. anti-homosexuality / abortion / drugs, with full-out willingness to implement attendant legislation) and anti-regulation / taxation (a.k.a. pro-corporatism). The last one might seem ridiculous (or maybe not--again, showing the many faces of libertarianism or at least my 'understanding'), but the big-L Libertarian (Tom Tancredo) who has the best shot at actually winning anything this go-around is just such a creature.

There was a comic I saw a while back which motivated this post:
http://www.leftycartoons.com/the-24-types-of-libertarian/

And then someone else (maybe the same author?) came up with ones for progressives and authoritarians:
http://www.neatorama.com/2010/07/19/24-types-of-libertarians-vs-24-types-of-authoritarians/

Jack21222 (having been relatively somewhere up there on the LP hierarchy) will probably speak to the nugget of truth in the first comic, and the difficulty when it comes to getting down to brass tacks and actually herding "small-l" cats for "big-L" purposes.

EVERY political label can be a Rorschach blot. As your second comic points out, the same can hold true for conservatives and liberals as well. For the first comic, I've known libertarians of almost every flavor listed there, it's pretty accurate.
 
  • #11
MATLABdude said:
In my observation (for what it's worth), small 'l' libertarianism is a Rosarch blot, meaning radically different things to different people. Whether that's might-make-right, corporatism, Randism, anti-corporatism / individual freedomist, anarcho-syndicalism, or some weird fusion of (usually Christian) fundamentalism (a.k.a. anti-homosexuality / abortion / drugs, with full-out willingness to implement attendant legislation) and anti-regulation / taxation (a.k.a. pro-corporatism). The last one might seem ridiculous (or maybe not--again, showing the many faces of libertarianism or at least my 'understanding'), but the big-L Libertarian (Tom Tancredo) who has the best shot at actually winning anything this go-around is just such a creature.

Being anti-regulation can mean being anti-corporatism, it depends. I consider myself mostly a small-L libertarian, or a classica liberal (using the 19th to early 20th century definition of liberal, not the version co-opted by the Left).

Libertarians do come in different flavors, though. For example, some are pro-choice and not much into religion at all, others are very much pro-life and fundamentalist Christians (i.e. Rand Paul).
 
  • #12
I never thought of myself as a libertarian. Matter of fact, I was pretty liberal. I believed that the government should reach out to those in need and that corporations were evil. That was until I started reading libertarian philosophy/history, and started learning that libertarianism was nothing new. Learning the difference between a pure democratic system versus a republic, helped further understand the pillars of libertarianism.

However, what really catalyzed my studies in political thought was learning about economics, and how the word capitalism is used wrongly and should be replaced by corporatism. Then, of course, you learn about taxation; the ever increasing scope of government; inflation and how it ties to governments over extending financial obligations via fiat currencies.

I just can't believe that over the last 4 years I went from Democrat to Republican to Libertarian. I can't believe how strongly I hold to libertarian values.

I think most people don't understand the concepts behind libertarianism because the first thing anyone tells me is that liberarians, in general, are anarchist, which they are not. There is definite role for government.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
I don't have any respect for ideologies that are self-destructive, because they are..self-destructive.

Since Ayn Rand's philosophy&state conception does not acknowledge the validity of affective (alogical) attachments&demands, her entire project is self-destructive, since by all accounts&empirical evidence, loyalty to some particular state of order is not something generated by logic&reason alone.

Thus, in that particular way of seeing things, I'm not a libertarian.
 
  • #14
A quick way to make a rough approximation: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

I scored P=70% & E=60%, putting me on the boundary between centrist and libertarian.
 
  • #15
Pythagorean said:
I used to be a libertarian when I thought freedom was all there was to life.
Freedom, like many things, is often not considered important until one does not have it. And different freedoms are important to different people. Some are perfectly content without economic freedom, as long as they have the social freedoms they desire, while others are just the opposite.

I think the core of libertarianism is to not just believe in the specific freedoms that are essential to your own enjoyment of life, but to believe in the ones that aren't, because they are essential to someone else's enjoyment of life.

I see in this forum repeatedly a complete disregard for the liberties others hold dear, as long as the liberties they hold dear are never violated. Then they scream bloody murder.

Of course most are honest enough not to call themselves libertarians, but it seems to me that a non-libertarian simply has no standing to complain about some violations of liberty, after advocating others.
 
  • #16
i used to be a card-carrying libertarian. but what i came to learn over time is that it is less the Reardens and Galts of the world that are attracted to it, but the PR Barnums. want to sell a fraudulent product without government interference of regulation? want to sue people that warn others that your product doesn't work? are you some kind of chiropractor or other witch doctor? then the libertarian party is probably for you.

plus the fact that libertarians simply do not build great civilizations. unless you consider monarchs to be the ultimate manifestation of libertarianism, but they always resort to violence.
 
  • #17
The Whatever Works Best Party

DR13 said:
Depends how you define Libertarian.

I'd let the party define itself, as they have http://www.lp.org/platform".

There's a lot of things I believe in, but most are cribbed from most parties, including Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independants. It's sort of a "take the best and forget the rest" approach to government.

In fact, I've already given it a title: The Whatever Works Best Party.

As for what's on my voter card, I think it's "unaffiliated."

Other possible titles:

The Un-Party

The Anti-Party-Cull

The Anti-Politic-Cull

I could go on, Lol.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Proton Soup said:
i used to be a card-carrying libertarian. but what i came to learn over time is that it is less the Reardens and Galts of the world that are attracted to it, but the PR Barnums. want to sell a fraudulent product without government interference of regulation? want to sue people that warn others that your product doesn't work? are you some kind of chiropractor or other witch doctor? then the libertarian party is probably for you.
Nonsense. If you used to be a "card carrying libertarian", you must have not read the motto on the card. It reads "No force, No fraud".
plus the fact that libertarians simply do not build great civilizations.
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?

Are you unaware that the U.S. was the biggest and most successful libertarian experiment in history?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Gokul43201 said:
A quick way to make a rough approximation: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

I scored P=70% & E=60%, putting me on the boundary between centrist and libertarian.

I scored P=50% and E=70%, putting me in in the upper right hand corner of centrist (the corner close to libertarian and conservative).

That's a quiz too short to make an assessment, though.

I don't think there should be a military draft (because draftees make poor military members), but I'd agree with some kind of mandatory community service to get certain government benefits (tuition assistance, etc).

I'm not an absolutist on free trade, either. In general, I think government should eliminate barriers to free trade, but there could be exceptions.

I agree with privatization of Social Security and cutting taxes as an end goal, but not necessarily as a sudden change (in fact, I kind of think an abrupt change for either would have some disasterous short term effects).

In other words, I'm probably a little more to the center than that quiz reflects.
 
  • #20
The quiz is also written in a particular way, that is likely to provoke a particular response: "End government barriers to international free trade" vs. e.g. "Require imports to pass the same safety requirements as domestic products". For that matter most "corporate welfare" (which libertarians traditionally oppose) is implemented as a tax reduction (which libertarians traditionally favor).

I think this is what is called a "push poll" - one designed to shape opinions rather than measure them.
 
  • #21
Socially liberal, and fiscally conservative (to an extreme) would brand me as a Libertarian, but the brand has been co-opted by neo-cons in recent years, who mask their "fiscal conservatism" in protectionism for corporations and weak regulatory policies. (Any Pauls come to mind?)
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Gokul43201 said:
A quick way to make a rough approximation: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

I scored P=70% & E=60%, putting me on the boundary between centrist and libertarian.
Me:
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 80%
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 90%
 
  • #23
arildno said:
I don't have any respect for ideologies that are self-destructive, because they are..self-destructive.

Since Ayn Rand's philosophy&state conception does not acknowledge the validity of affective (alogical) attachments&demands, her entire project is self-destructive, since by all accounts&empirical evidence, loyalty to some particular state of order is not something generated by logic&reason alone.

Thus, in that particular way of seeing things, I'm not a libertarian.
Great criticism of Rand, though she's far from synonymous with libertarianism.
 
  • #24
Vanadium 50 said:
The quiz is also written in a particular way, that is likely to provoke a particular response: "End government barriers to international free trade" vs. e.g. "Require imports to pass the same safety requirements as domestic products". For that matter most "corporate welfare" (which libertarians traditionally oppose) is implemented as a tax reduction (which libertarians traditionally favor).
Not unexpected, given that the quiz is created by "advocates for self-government". For the most part though, I think it still can be used to distinguish a statist from a libertarian, etc (I know people that took it and ended up all over the map).
 
  • #25
arildno said:
I don't have any respect for ideologies that are self-destructive, because they are..self-destructive.

Since Ayn Rand's philosophy&state conception does not acknowledge the validity of affective (alogical) attachments&demands, her entire project is self-destructive, since by all accounts&empirical evidence, loyalty to some particular state of order is not something generated by logic&reason alone.

Thus, in that particular way of seeing things, I'm not a libertarian.

I have no idea what you said there; when you say "state conception," what do you mean? When you say "affective (alogical" attachments & demands, do you mean she does not acknowledge the validity of emotional arguments and demands?

Do you mean that her project is self-destructive in that her philosophy and concept of a state does not acknowledge the validity of emotional reasons...?

BTW, I am not a strict Randian at all, from what I understand, she was more of an anarchist, I just got confused by your post.
 
  • #26
The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand
http://jhp.sagepub.com/content/24/4/39
For eighteen years I was a close associate of novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand whose books, notably The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrrugged, inspired a philosophical movement known as objectivism. This philosophy places its central emphasis on reason, individualism, enlightened self-interest, political freedom-and a heroic vision of life's possibilities. Following an explosive parting of the ways with Ayn Rand in 1968, I have been asked many times about the nature of our differences. This article is my first public answer to that question. Although agreeing with many of the values of the objectivist philosophy and vision, I discuss the consequences of the absence of an adequate psychology to support this intellectual structure-focusing in particular on the destructive moralism of Rand and many of her followers, a moralism that sublty encourages repression, self-alienation, and guilt. I offer an explanation of the immense appeal of Ayn Rand's philosophy, particularly to the young, and suggest some cautionary observations concerning its adaptation to one's own life.
 
  • #27
WFB's 1982 obit:

...What did Miss Rand in was her anxiety to theologize her beliefs. She was an eloquent and persuasive anti-statist, and if only she had left it at that—but no, she had to declare that God did not exist, that altruism was despicable, that only self-interest is good and noble. She risked, in fact, giving to capitalism that bad name that its enemies have done so well in giving it; and that is a pity. Miss Rand was a talented woman, devoted to her ideals. She came as a refugee from Communism to this country as a young woman, and carved out a substantial career. May she rest in peace, and may she experience the demystification of her mind possessed.
http://the-laws-of-thought.blogspot.com/2010/01/ayn-rand.html
 
  • #28
Whittaker Chambers, a US intellectual, communist and Soviet spy who reformed when learning of Stalin's purges, wrote the 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged.

Big Sister Is Watching You. NR 1957, W. Chambers
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
CAC1001 said:
I have no idea what you said there; when you say "state conception," what do you mean? When you say "affective (alogical" attachments & demands, do you mean she does not acknowledge the validity of emotional arguments and demands?

Do you mean that her project is self-destructive in that her philosophy and concept of a state does not acknowledge the validity of emotional reasons...?

BTW, I am not a strict Randian at all, from what I understand, she was more of an anarchist, I just got confused by your post.
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.
 
  • #30


I think this video does a great job of showing libertarian values.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
As a follow-up:

CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF FREQUENCY OF "SLAVISHNESS" vs. "LOVE OF FREEDOM":

If the vast majority of humans can be expected to prefer death to a miserable slavish existence, then Rand's conception of society could be a stable one (disregarding issues about how pleasant/good society it would be).

People would rather starve to death than accept personally disgraceful contracts of work (say, that they are to get the job on condition that their bodies are to be sexually penetrable for their employer at any time of his choosing).

But what if the willingness to live, however badly, is way more frequent than the commitment to ideas of personal dignity?

In that case, the Rand model has too few checks&balances in-built to prevent the evolution of an effective master/slave-society.

Now, what we DO have evidence about is that the vast majority of societies in history has been extremely abusive of what we would call basic human rights, and those societies cannot be regarded as less stable than the others.

We have a number of pitiful contracts, for example, from the merovingian period of the early middle ages, of people selling themselves into slavery in order to gain a small measure of material security.

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.

Now, one might try to modify this by saying:
"Oh, we need not assume such a necessary love of freedom existing in sufficient frequency, rather, it will blossom in some manner".

In that case, one might legitimately ask:
a) Should such an attitude be INCULCATED in the population? Can we trust the parents to do so?
Or must we start public, "free" schools in order to make our propaganda stick?
In that case, the minimalist state conception of Rand is already..destroyed.

b) Or, who is the more freedom-loving lowlife:
The one taking a lousy job at Burger King, or the one developing himself into a..Burglar King?
 
  • #32


mugaliens said:
I'd let the party define itself, as they have http://www.lp.org/platform".

There's a lot of things I believe in, but most are cribbed from most parties, including Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independants. It's sort of a "take the best and forget the rest" approach to government.

In fact, I've already given it a title: The Whatever Works Best Party.

I think this is the most healthy approach to politics.

A candidate is a 'product' to be chosen or rejected and political parties are the 'stores' from which the 'products' are chosen. Being a loyal Republican or a loyal Democrat is a silly as being a loyal K-Mart shopper.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Al68 said:
Nonsense. If you used to be a "card carrying libertarian", you must have not read the motto on the card. It reads "No force, No fraud".

yeah, so? doesn't change the fact that it attracts swindlers eager to be free of the shackles of regulations that keep them in check.

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?

Are you unaware that the U.S. was the biggest and most successful libertarian experiment in history?

i'm aware that we used the government to fund building a railroad across the continent. to bring power and telephone to rural populations. to build sewers and water works. police, fire, and infantry. nuclear power. the interstate highway system. satellites and the first internet. 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.

yes, we're very successful at what we do. but no, we are not very libertarian, especially on the "no force" part.
 
  • #34


BobG said:
I think this is the most healthy approach to politics.

A candidate is a 'product' to be chosen or rejected and political parties are the 'stores' from which the 'products' are chosen. Being a loyal Republican or a loyal Democrat is a silly as being a loyal K-Mart shopper.
Or being a loyal reader of Newsweek vs Time, or a loyal consumer of Coke vs Pepsi. In both cases, neither choice is good for you, or sufficient. Pick your poison.
 
  • #35
Proton Soup said:
i'm aware that we used the government to fund building a railroad across the continent. to bring power and telephone to rural populations. to build sewers and water works. police, fire, and infantry. nuclear power. the interstate highway system. satellites and the first internet. 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.

yes, we're very successful at what we do. but no, we are not very libertarian, especially on the "no force" part.
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.
 
<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
595
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
869
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
11K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
981
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
2K
Back
Top