What drives people towards libertarianism?

Post Reply New Topic

This is a thread partially made out of my curiosity, and partially out of my intense guilt for my former political views.

I used to be a libertarian- advocated minarchism, small government, free markets, privatized social services, and all that- I wasn't extreme about it but saw it as an ideal. All of that changed over the course of a few months with the help of a liberal AP US History teacher who explained the value of government in the economy, and a near-fatal illness that even Medicaid was loath to cover. What was worse about it? I'm a lower-middle-class immigrant teen. I'm now a moderate leaning left, don't currently have a coherent ideology and have tried to distance myself from that shameful past as much as possible- I couldn't believe how lacking in empathy I was with my politics.

But it leads me to these questions: Why are people driven towards libertarianism, when it sounds so much like anarchism? Is it the concept of rights? Is it the relaxed social views? Is it the frustration from US-style 2-party politics? Is it lack of empathy? Is it the idea of self-determination? Or is it just simple selfishness and greed?

Libertarians do not want the government to regulate the minute details of their lives or to redistribute the money that they ear. Taxes are bad enough (a necessary evil, because we cannot government without some level of taxation). But taxing with the intent of taking away money those that have a lot of it to give to people who do not have much is charity at gunpoint.

As to the matter of regulating life style, we do not need the Governmental Nanny State to tell us not to have too much candy or to eat our veggies.

ruveyn

i thought you are asking about the profession 'librarian'

I am not against paternalism per se, I guess I am against the force that is necessary to keep government at the center of the universe. If you think that a certain form of governance, great, just don't force it on me. I guess I just hate one size fits all solutions. And just as a fair warning, I am a more anarchist leaning . But initially what pushed me towards libertarianism is food freedom and safety, which seemed to be lacking even with the FDA. Also, the Republicans obsession with subsidies to big oil. I guess they said they were conservative, yet they gave subsidies to companies was just asinine. So I guess though why I stay libertarian (and anarchist) is because I don't believe there is one type of government that is perfect, I just believe you have to do what is right for you. And if you want more paternalism, be my guest, I may join you if it is successful enough.

Well I voted for Gary Johnson. I found the notion of ending the IRS and Income Tax and replacing it with a consumption tax appealing. This is because I consider the income tax a invasion of financial privacy.

I'm for ending crazy interventionist wars.

I'm for less centralized government planning on Capital Hill.

However, in discussions with Proggresives, I have explored the idea of State Government and the role it can play as a safety net. If there is a wild fire I don't think a private company should demand payment before saving home threatened. If there is a crime I think we should have a police force.

Yet, our police and emergency services are local city, county, or state services. We don't call 911 and have the FBI show up.

Also, in the past I have collected State Unemployment. Yes I must acknowledge it may have a Federal Subsidy but I still like the local government having final say. I think this is even true of Canada's government and Provincial based health care. Ottawa supports the program but does not run the entire thing.

So, I lean Libertarian regarding a limited Federal government and giving power back to the states which can implement things like RomneyCare if they want to.

I've had the government involved in a good portion of my life, starting at about 10 or 11 years old, stemming from me not wanting to go to school in 5th grade, and getting charged with truancy for simply staying home from school because I hated it, couldn't socialize, and was under lots of stress from changes happening at home and in school. I was threatened juvie/residentials, had to see probation officers, get yelled at by roid-head school cops with attitude problems, see a bunch of "counselors" all when all I wanted was to be left alone.

That'll do it.

And this is where I will disagree. Savings creates scarcity for dollars, which raises their value, thus helping the poor. So actually, when you redistribute that money, you will actually have higher inflation, which will hurt the poor, since their income does not keep up with the growth of the economy as much as those who are directly related to businesses.

Why not just have something of value backing your currency? Doesn't all that money printing lead to speculative frenzies, ala 1929, 1999, and 2008?

So using what is happening now with Ben Bernanke and the Fed, wouldn't the flood of money be better left saved? Since it would prevent inflation? And while I no doubt agree full employment would be reached, what quality of jobs would those be?