Any other libertarians here?

Post Reply New Topic

I dunno, I was just making that comment because some were saying that libertarianism was ideal for aspies, but there are aspie left wingers, aspie right-wingers, and probably some aspie national-socialists somewhere too and all have their own logical basis to some extent.

In the United States, libertarianism holds a different meaning than it does in Europe. In the United States, libertarianism is simply a code word for "anarcho-capitalism," confusing the goals of personal responsibility with market-baced policies. Most libertarians that exist in the United States are vehemently market fundamentalists, so much so that they're not even supported by the mainstream corporate community. Most others who support libertarianism in the United States latch on to their superficial ethos of what can be called "personal responsibility." Many argue in favor of gun rights and other things, but this has little to do with anything the people at the center of the libertarian party argue in favor for. Libertarians will be more than willing to let corporations utilize child labor in the America, so long as they claim that it is the personal right of families to allow their young children to work at low cost and even in dangerous conditions. Libertarians tend to favor removing the minimum wage, and that is example enough to support that view.

- Ray M -

Uh.... no, most libertarians are not anarcho-capitalists, the furthest most go is towards minarchy, even the hard-core libertarian author Ayn Rand wasn't an anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-capitalists are a very very small group. The idea that libertarians might go beyond what corporations would prefer in terms of market structures is no major statement. Corporations don't really care about the market, some of their ideas are pro-market but others are simply measures to enrich themselves at the expense of the market because all many companies care about is strengthening their position. The core of the libertarian party is less government intervention, and to that extent we have libertarians that support less social intervention more and libertarians that support less economic intervention more. I hardly see how the call for personal responsibility is a superficial ethos and I also don't see how desiring the removal of the minimum wage really is proof of anything though, other than a stronger pro-market stance than yours.

Do not confuse the Libertarian Party with libertarianism...libertarianis is simply the modern expression of classical liberalism or market liberalism..think of Locke and Jefferson, Rand, Mises et al...Do not think of Lew Rockwell...

That is definitely true, the libertarian party can be a bit far out from what I've heard. I dunno, I just am thinking of libertarianism in terms of the political axes for a large part as there are many small l libertarians.

This, like many of Aeturnus' posts, is quite devoid of actual facts. I'm beginning to think he's either RobertN or one of his buddies.

Yes!! I've been a libertarian since before I had heard the term. Perhaps it was from reading all those Robert Heinlein books as a kid or maybe it's because my logical, analytical brain is not clouded with NT emotional thinking.

Thistledown

I mentioned the call for personal responsibility as a superficial ethos in terms of current libertarianist thought. I'm speaking of this term "libertarianism" in regards to the libertarian party in the United States, which openly advocates strict adherence to the market policies. They believe in personal responsibility as a right to own much more than personal belongings, such as guns and houses.

For example, they advocate this to land and productive property. Ownership of land leads to ecological disaster, because the rules that regard how property is managed is never well understood as a whole.

Realize that this idea of "personal responsibility" is something of a hypocrisy. If I own land and decide to throw oil onto the ground, and it seeps into the groundwater and begins to cause ecological problems, who is responsible? I am, because I purposely causing pollution that infringes upon the rights of both the ecology of the area and to others who depend on it. There are many libertarians who would view shoving oil and chemicals down storm drains as not a problem, and when they are told not to, all of a sudden they throw up this BS: "Nobody tells me what to do! My rights are being taken away. I should be able to do with my land as I want to!"

This kind of sentiment is sickening, and it is why I started to drift to the far left. I became sick and tired of listening to the negative ramblings of my hypocritical father, whom is pathologically self-centered and emotionally abusive. I started to see the light in a lot of this method of thinking, and I see it in a lot of the conservative sectors. My father is an ultra-right-wing bigot, and occasionally talks about how we should shoot all the "foreigners," all this despite the fact that I tend to think he is somewhat of an aspie. If you lived with that kind of stuff being discussed a lot, you too would most likely drift away from the current mode of thinking.

More lights started to go off in my head when I started reading pamphlets from the Sierra Club and a couple of other environment organizations I have been involved with. Take the current problems with Hurricane Katrina. The right-wing base in the US began to talk about "how Clinton caused the levees to fail, for he denied funding back in the 1990s." Though I'm not any big fan of Clinton, I think we need to look at the misdirection here. Clinton denied that funding because environmental groups encouraged him to, and because they were going to incorporate a cheap and ecologically-damaging way to do it. They planned on removing a huge load of dirt and mud from nearby wetlands to create these levees, wetlands that are already disappearing at dramatic degrees each year. Of course, the Right Wing base never mentioned this. Even the liberal arguments hardly mentioned this. You'd have to read those reports from environmental groups to find out these reasons, but who really has the time to do that kind of research? Sure, I have but then I took the time to do so out of an interest.

The removal of the minimum wage, which is supported by libertarians because of a stance that they believe the government shall not get involved in the market, will cause many companies to hire children at cheaper and cheaper rates. The job market is wildly competitive, to a degree that is beyond ethical. Nobody should have to compete to survive, which is a sickening idea if you would take the time to think about it. The libertarians may or may not find problems with Wal*Mart's endeavors, but they will be far less likely to do anything about it. With Wal*Mart near the top, if not even number one, many companies will be forced to compete with them, so they will start to take on similar characteristics. That's the role of the market, and that is sickening.

- Ray M -

I was quoting Chomsky with that line that libertarianism holds a different meaning in Europe. In fact, a lot of what I write tends to incorporate what I have previously read by a variety of people and surrounded by my own words.

So, your idea that my posts are devoid of facts is far likely to be inaccurate. Besides, the line between facts and opinions when in discussions about a political, social or religious nature is extremely blurred. All of us, in some way or another, base decisions in a large part on what we hear and what we read.

It is an intrinsic nature for anyone whom favors one spectrum of political, social or religious thought to commonly refer to any sort of different view as devoid of facts, e.g. wrong. At the extreme end, those with severe emotional or cognitive disturbances will get a tendency to outright call those a liar and engage in non-supportive, black-and-white thinking. I can easily envision how this might come up with someone who has aspergers, but at this point ... maybe a thought of ABA therapy wouldn't be a bad idea.

- Ray M -

What you described there was an externality. Most people recognize that these exist, the question ultimately comes up about how much it should be valued at. Only blindly ideological libertarians claim that externalities don't exist and even anarcho-capitalists have methods for dealing with externalities, heck, anarcho-capitalist David Friedman actually wrote a book once about the complex nature of property rights, so it isn't like externalities are ignored by extreme libertarians. The libertarian fear is of government that actually does tell people what to do with their property and through micro-managing destroys freedom and economic welfare.

The removal of a minimum wage isn't going to cause the entire labor market to collapse to nothing, if it would then all wages would be at the current minimum. People are not going to do things for certain wages and companies know that, it is just that the freedom to get cheaper labor for certain positions would be something that companies would prefer as some jobs may not create the same value for the employer as would justify a minimum wage but would still be something that people would pay for. Markets aren't ethical but are rather impersonal, ok, so there should be laws preventing the violation of negative rights, however, the impersonality of markets actually is one of their winning characteristics, as it pushes the market to seek efficiency without regard to the differing moralities of individuals. The market doesn't care whether or not you are a commie, or a fascist, a libertarian, or a chicken-fetishist and will buy your product if it is the best. Competition isn't sickening, I would rather have competition than inefficiency, as I would rather have individuals be able to pursue their varying goals freely.

Ray, if you quote Chomsky, we can be certain that it is devoid of facts.

Libertarian here, for about eight years now.

Nearly Libertarian for a long while now. I know I'm very anti-statist, and Libertarianism would to me to be polar opposite of statism.

There is no arch type Libertarian. In fact, one of the reasons why the party has not been able to effectively organize itself is its inability to define itself in terms all libertarians can agree on. Think of two of the representative polemics in the party both rightly claiming to be Libertarians. You have Neil Boortz on one side, who clings to the right-wing Lyndon La Rouche model of libertarianism (the old guard) and Bill Maher, who tends to be more of a left wing, enviro-friendly liberal with an appreciation for bodies larger than a single sovereignty. The common ground I believe is the respect for constitutionality.

A Constitutional form of govenment puts all power in the hands of the people and grants limited power to the three branches of government. This was illustrated in the original amendment process which put checks on the power of the federal government. Respect for the constitution is acknowledgement of the power of the people to redefine that power as the vast majority of its citizens demand. Libertarianism is about freedom first. Issues such as national security and free markets fall behind that.

I tend to adopt the more modern libertarian view of the government as the guarantor of my "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." To me, the federal government was establishd soley to carry out what the preamble specifies... form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the genral welfare AND secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. That means that I reject the government's tendency to pass extraconstiutional laws or exercise extraconstitutional powers. Nowhere in my Constitution does it say "oh, and in case of fear, throw out what doesn't feel comfortable".

I reject the notion that any president has the right or power to issue executive orders or to proceed in any action not specifically allowed in Article II or any succeeding Amendment. I likewise appreciate that our framers made the first article legislative powers, suggesting that they considered the legislative branch to be first and foremost in importance. I am concerned that the executive feels that it has carte blanche to do as it wishes and to foist its will on congress. It is the other way around. The only real power granted to the executive was to sign or veto a bill.

Finally, I am dreadfully concerned that both the executive and the legislature are doing everything in their power to dominate the third co-equal branch of government, the judicial. Our founders intended this to be a totally independent branch with lifetime appointments by the president with the advice and consent of congress. Our government is doing all it can to limit the citizen's access to the courts and to restrict our right to "petition the government for grievences". We should all be concerned that the executive and legislative are doing everything in their power to assurp our control of our government. This is not a left or right issue, this is our birthright and we should be ashamed of ourselves that we let them use fear to make us doubt the wisdom of our rights and freedoms. And both major parties, Democrats and Republicans, are playing the same fear card.

I can think of nothing more un-American and un-Libertarian. But of course, that is my opinion and I'm sure many Libertarians will disagree.

Paranoia. Not libertarianism.

Guns don't kill people, people do. Using guns.

I equate Libertarianism with Liberalism, in the British sense of the word.