- #1
1MileCrash
- 1,342
- 41
Just seeing if there are others out there on this board.
DR13 said:Depends how you define Libertarian. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Some people say this is Libertarian.
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.
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.
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.Pythagorean said:I used to be a libertarian when I thought freedom was all there was to life.
DR13 said:Depends how you define Libertarian.
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".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.
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?plus the fact that libertarians simply do not build great civilizations.
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: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.
Great criticism of Rand, though she's far from synonymous with libertarianism.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.
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).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).
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.
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.
http://the-laws-of-thought.blogspot.com/2010/01/ayn-rand.html...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.
Rand makes the same mistake as communists: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.
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.
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".
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?
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.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.
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.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.