Poll: Libertarianism, For or against?

What is your opinion of libertarianism?


  • Total voters
    0
#1

OrangeEmpire

The White Debonair
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
74,988
Likes
59
#1
In response to the perceived inadequacies of established ideologies, the last generation has seen a resurgence of classical liberalism, today called libertarianism. In a nutshell, libertarians hold to a doctrine of free will and advocate maximum self ownership. They favor widened personal freedom, believing that people should be allowed to do as they wish with themselves and their property, with only the requirement to recognise other's rights to do likewise as a limit on personal freedom.

Libertarianism is sometimes seen as a "third way" between traditional right vs left politics. Like leftists, they favor enhanced civil liberties and personal freedom, but reject the left's economic philosophies. Like rightists, they favor free markets but oppose social conservatism. They abhor racism, fundamentalism and fascism (extreme right) and socialism, political correctness and communism (far left) equally.

But libertarianism has its critics as well. Traditional conservatives and other right wingers argue that libertarianism will cause an erosion of civic virtue, public morality and ultimately of social order itself. They abhor the thought of legalizing drugs and prostitution and wonder how social order will be protected from internal and external threats in the face of vastly expanded civil liberties and reduced police and armed force.

Liberals, progressives and socialists raise concerns over the free market agenda, which they fear will enrich wealthy elites at the expense of everyone else. They cringe at the notion of abolishing regulations and programs that are designed to assist the poor, minorities, feminists, workers, the environment and others they consider socially disadvantaged.

Thoughts?
 
#4
#4
Good in theory - poor in practice.

I'm generally for less govt. but the notion that "as long as my behavior doesn't infringe on someone else it's okay" doesn't really work.
 
#6
#6
Don't listen to him much but like him for the most part.

Personally, I'm a capitalist/social libertarian so I'm close to libertarianism. I think Ron Paul has some good ideas but just don't see it working in practice.
 
#7
#7
Don't listen to him much but like him for the most part.

Personally, I'm a capitalist/social libertarian so I'm close to libertarianism. I think Ron Paul has some good ideas but just don't see it working in practice.

I would have to agree with you.
 
#11
#11
Don't listen to him much but like him for the most part.

Personally, I'm a capitalist/social libertarian so I'm close to libertarianism. I think Ron Paul has some good ideas but just don't see it working in practice.

I would have to agree with you.

I agree as well. I wish people would at least give it a chance to work.

What are some of the reasons you feel it would not?

Edit: I am one of the votes for it.
 
#12
#12
I agree as well. I wish people would at least give it a chance to work.

What are some of the reasons you feel it would not?

Especially at the local level, laws must exist to balance competing interests.

Take a neighborhood for example. When does my right to keep my yard trashed interfere with my neighbor's right to live in a clean neighborhood with stable property values?

In other words, the notion that 300 million individuals can all pursue their own lives except when those lives interfere with other lives just isn't workable.

As a result, individuals must at some point cede rights to the collective. As far as I can tell, pure Libertariansim doesn't provide any real guidance for how much or under which condition those individual rights are ceded.
 
#13
#13
Libertarians are generally individualists which means that the current political party system is anathema to the way they operate. Politcal parties demand a certain level of member discipline (i.e., subordination of individual beliefs to the common goal) which is exactly what caused Libertarians to opt out of the two-party system in the first place.

IOW, Libertarians could be a massive political party if they could just organize, but if they organize to that extent, they are not Libertarians. So then they are forced to either a) throw their vote away on candidates who have not a hope in hades of winning or b) hold their noses and vote for a Republicrat or Demolican who most closely says things vaguely Libertarian. Libertarians then realize they could be a force on the system BUT have to organize to play a role in the system as it is currently set up, which of course means ...

ad infintum, ad nauseum
 
#14
#14
Especially at the local level, laws must exist to balance competing interests.

Take a neighborhood for example. When does my right to keep my yard trashed interfere with my neighbor's right to live in a clean neighborhood with stable property values?

In other words, the notion that 300 million individuals can all pursue their own lives except when those lives interfere with other lives just isn't workable.

If you are a Boortz Libertarian (like me) you respect the rule of law, especially the Constitution. You'd also appreciate and understand the nature of property values and accept the fact that if you choose to live in a neighborhood in which the homeowners' administration has established guidelines for appearance and upkeep, you abide by those laws.

If there is a law that you don't like, you don't just decide to disobey it. You work within the Constitutional system to get it changed. Again, this is how I see Boortz Libertarianism. Neal despises the federal income tax, but he pays his taxes because that's the law. He's working within the system to get the Fair Tax implemented.

There's a mistaken notion that Libertarians are anarchists, and maybe some are but Boortz isn't and I don't believe the folks at the Rand Corporation are anarchists either.
 
#15
#15
If you are a Boortz Libertarian (like me) you respect the rule of law, especially the Constitution. You'd also appreciate and understand the nature of property values and accept the fact that if you choose to live in a neighborhood in which the homeowners' administration has established guidelines for appearance and upkeep, you abide by those laws.


Amen to that.
 
#18
#18
If you are a Boortz Libertarian (like me) you respect the rule of law, especially the Constitution. You'd also appreciate and understand the nature of property values and accept the fact that if you choose to live in a neighborhood in which the homeowners' administration has established guidelines for appearance and upkeep, you abide by those laws.

If there is a law that you don't like, you don't just decide to disobey it. You work within the Constitutional system to get it changed. Again, this is how I see Boortz Libertarianism. Neal despises the federal income tax, but he pays his taxes because that's the law. He's working within the system to get the Fair Tax implemented.

There's a mistaken notion that Libertarians are anarchists, and maybe some are but Boortz isn't and I don't believe the folks at the Rand Corporation are anarchists either.

I don't consider them anarchists or law disobeyers.

The problem is not with obeying the law --- it's with creating the law. I think OMG points out the philosophical conflict. The notion of homeowner's administration laws is a tautological example. To have neighborhood rules, the owners must agree to put individual rights aside - the example posted above assumes such agreement has already been made and the choice is to join that particular collective or not join. My point (and I think OMG's) is that the whole idea of such right yielding is antithetical (other than as mandated by the Constitution) to Libertarian thought. As a result, it's hard to envision agreement among Libertarians as to when and which individual rights are ceded to the collective. There is no philosophical or organizing guide to suggest when it should or shouldn't occur (hence, the organizational problem stated by OMG). It's hard to imagine any such laws would have ever been created in Libertarian society. .
 
#19
#19
Well this is how I see it....

Libertarians are people that see things in a common sense kinda way. Take prostitution for example, they want it legalized because their rationale is that if you can give it away from free then what's wrong with paying for it. Same thing with drugs, people are gonna do them whether its against the law or not. I somewhat agree with this rationale in the common sense aspect, but whole-heartedly disagree based on a moral ground. Yeah sure people are gonna do these things even if they are illegal, but there would be no checks and balances to it. I mean could you imagine having a "Pimp Checks and Balances Act" amendment in the Constitution?? As these things have been going on long before I was here and will go on long after, because once you remove the laws then all hell will break loose. I personally think that most libertarians should move to Amsterdam for about 2 years and then come back and let us know if legalizing the two things I covered in this post should be legalized. I think their answer to that would be an astounding, NO.
 
#20
#20
I personally think that most libertarians should move to Amsterdam for about 2 years and then come back and let us know if legalizing the two things I covered in this post should be legalized. I think their answer to that would be an astounding, NO.

I would gladly take that challenge if money and job considerations would allow it.
 
#23
#23
I consider myself somewhat of a libertarian, but I find that a lot of social issues don't even matter for me, like gay rights, abortion, etc. so I favour republicans because of their economic policies.
 
#24
#24
I consider myself somewhat of a libertarian, but I find that a lot of social issues don't even matter for me, like gay rights, abortion, etc. so I favour republicans because of their economic policies.


You've got a lot of company on this board.
 
#25
#25
Posted this in the book thread too. I updated my email address with the UT Alumni people and I started getting the "eTorch". Anyway, this article caught my eye:

Tennessee Today - Law Professor: Harry Potter Has Hidden Message

Barton has written and lectured about how Rowling depicts the government and law in the Harry Potter books.

"When I read the fifth and sixth books, I noticed a real Libertarian bent. I thought, 'Well, that's interesting for children's literature,'" Barton said.
 

VN Store



Back
Top