Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If we had a real social Darwinism society, there would still be leaders and strongmen, rich and poor, powerful and weak etc. It would be much more tribal, patriarchal, hierarchal and intolerant and forceful. I'm not necessarily saying that's all a bad thing. I think America 1620 to 1820 or so and even up till the early 1900s in places was the most libertarian society ever existed.
Libertarianism argues well you still had some minimal government action or "force" in Colonial America and on the frontier. Yeah and where you had none on the frontier it was lawless and even more precarious.
Libertarianism theory sounds a lot like communist theory in some respect-We never had pure libertarianism (communism). If we just had pure libertarianism (communism) it wouldn't have any failures and would be a utopia. It's just a pipe dream.
Very wrong. That's a strawman I see all the time, but nobody claims that a purely libertarian society would be a utopia where nothing bad would happen. We're simply arguing that self-defense and the defense of other innocent people is the only acceptable form of force, and that we shouldn't have this giant monopoly organization that has an exemption from the rules that apply to anyone else.
It's actually the idea that you CAN'T create a perfect society, especially by having some central authority controlling people by force and taking their stuff. That's the insanity that people keep trying over and over and over again...the idea that just the right amount or arrangement of domination will create the ideal society.
The best thing to do is stop trying to impose your master plan on everyone else and let society organize naturally on a voluntary basis - respect each person's self-ownership and don't try to be their master.
(And before the statist/minarchist Libertarians say that libertarianism isn't anarchy...yes, there are "anarchist" libertarians like myself and a few others here)
If we had a real social Darwinism society, there would still be leaders and strongmen, rich and poor, powerful and weak etc. It would be much more tribal, patriarchal, hierarchal and intolerant and forceful. I'm not necessarily saying that's all a bad thing. I think America 1620 to 1820 or so and even up till the early 1900s in places was the most libertarian society ever existed.
Libertarianism argues well you still had some minimal government action or "force" in Colonial America and on the frontier. Yeah and where you had none on the frontier it was lawless and even more precarious.
Libertarianism theory sounds a lot like communist theory in some respect-We never had pure libertarianism (communism). If we just had pure libertarianism (communism) it wouldn't have any failures and would be a utopia. It's just a pipe dream.
There will ALWAYS be rich and poor, leaders and strongmen, powerful and weak etc.
I don't think you know what communism is. I had the good fortune to grow up in a communist country and it's nothing remotely close to libertarianism. Communism is something American liberals, aka American Communists, are pushing: income equality, wealth equality, wealth distribution, paying fair share, political correctiveness, Affirmative Action, etc. etc. etc.
Life has never been black and white. It is grey. We are not going to have "pure" of anything in our life. Even some die hard libertarian would agree there has to be some form of social programs in the libertarian utopia.
In my mind, the libertarianism is a movement to slowly giving the respect, power and freedom back to the people.
There is plenty of very, very vague talk when it comes to libertarianism. But what does it all translate into? What policies do libertarians actually live and die for?
Only two:
1. It MUST be "anything goes" when it comes to marriage.
2. No rules about pot.
That's it.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Well, I can think of:
Property rights (specifically regarding the abuse of eminent domain as Kelo v. City of New London)
Police Reform (specifically in regarding the overuse of SWAT teams)
Free Speech
Privacy
Government Secrecy regarding issues not directly related to National Security
Tax Reform
There will ALWAYS be rich and poor, leaders and strongmen, powerful and weak etc.
I don't think you know what communism is. I had the good fortune to grow up in a communist country and it's nothing remotely close to libertarianism. Communism is something American liberals, aka American Communists, are pushing: income equality, wealth equality, wealth distribution, paying fair share, political correctiveness, Affirmative Action, etc. etc. etc.
Life has never been black and white. It is grey. We are not going to have "pure" of anything in our life. Even some die hard libertarian would agree there has to be some form of social programs in the libertarian utopia.
In my mind, the libertarianism is a movement to slowly giving the respect, power and freedom back to the people.
I didn't say libertarianism and communist were similar. I said they both are a theory that basically proposes if we just had it in pure form it would be the ultimate state.
America was probably the most libertarian society that ever existed up till about the 1940s. Even in my mom's youth the government (and media) was so small in the average persons life, they couldn't even sense it. A lot of people have a good sense of what libertarianism looks like for the good and bad.
What you described as libertarianism I understand as paleo-conservativism, putting aside free trade and immigration.
I didn't say libertarianism and communist were similar. I said they both are a theory that basically proposes if we just had it in pure form it would be the ultimate state.
America was probably the most libertarian society that ever existed up till about the 1940s. Even in my mom's youth the government (and media) was so small in the average persons life, they couldn't even sense it. A lot of people have a good sense of what libertarianism looks like for the good and bad.
What you described as libertarianism I understand as paleo-conservativism, putting aside free trade and immigration.
There was a time early in the movement when Libertarians were utopian anarchists -- which would fit with your idea of moving things to extremes. In the same sense that Communism represent absolute and total control of everything the people do and say, the most extreme form of Libertarianism (which almost nobody believes in) advocates absolutely no control.
Similar to the Republican and Democrat parties, the Libertarian Party has evolved away from bad ideas. The LP is no longer the party of the government doing nothing and even completely ceasing to exist. It has simply become the party advocating for the government doing less across the board. Less regulation. Less legislation of morality. behavior and telling people how to live their lives. Less well intended programs with horrible unintended consequences. A lot less sending our military to beat up the bad guys all over the world. We stand for the government ceasing their destructive control and manipulation of the economy, education, income classes, social engineering, massive debt and over taxation, etc. Take a look at Gary Johnson's time as governor of New Mexico. He didn't disband the NM state government. It wasn't anachy and chaos in the streets. Laws and government institutions protecting people from victimizing each other still existed in NM. But Johnson did make a lot of progress toward the State of NM doing less, and the citizens of that state liked it well enough to reelect him.
There is a very simple answer to the OP's question, "What policies do libertarians actually live and die for?"
The answer: The government needs to do less, pretty much across the board.
There was a time early in the movement when Libertarians were utopian anarchists -- which would fit with your idea of moving things to extremes. In the same sense that Communism represent absolute and total control of everything the people do and say, the most extreme form of Libertarianism (which almost nobody believes in) advocates absolutely no control.
Similar to the Republican and Democrat parties, the Libertarian Party has evolved away from bad ideas. The LP is no longer the party of the government doing nothing and even completely ceasing to exist. It has simply become the party advocating for the government doing less across the board. Less regulation. Less legislation of morality. behavior and telling people how to live their lives. Less well intended programs with horrible unintended consequences. A lot less sending our military to beat up the bad guys all over the world. We stand for the government ceasing their destructive control and manipulation of the economy, education, income classes, social engineering, massive debt and over taxation, etc. Take a look at Gary Johnson's time as governor of New Mexico. He didn't disband the NM state government. It wasn't anachy and chaos in the streets. Laws and government institutions protecting people from victimizing each other still existed in NM. But Johnson did make a lot of progress toward the State of NM doing less, and the citizens of that state liked it well enough to reelect him.
There is a very simple answer to the OP's question, "What policies do libertarians actually live and die for?"
The answer: The government needs to do less, pretty much across the board.
That's a big divide within libertarian circles...actually 3 divides. You have the most common Libertarians who believe in a state, but only the barebones police, military, courts kind of thing.
Then you have a newer push to compromise on principles and attract more people to the party - kind of marketing it as taking a bit from the Democrats and a bit for the Republicans. The former are kind of upset at this strategy, as it really just makes Libertarians look like Republican-lite rather than their own philosophy.
Then you have the Rothbardian types like myself who advocate no state at all, and this group is growing very quickly. These are the ones that follow the philosophy of libertarianism (non-aggression principle and respect for property rights) fully consistently...and it's really the only rational and consistent way of thinking about politics, but many dismiss it as too extreme.
There is plenty of very, very vague talk when it comes to libertarianism. But what does it all translate into? What policies do libertarians actually live and die for?
Only two:
1. It MUST be "anything goes" when it comes to marriage.
2. No rules about pot.
That's it.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
it goes to show that you know very little about Libertarians.
Libertarians for the most part do not care who uses pot or not, they just do not like government telling you that you can or cannot use it.
responsible for your own actions and self responsibility describes most Libertarians that I know of.
those are 2 qualities that make up most Libertarians than what you are led to believe about Libertarians.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
