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.
In reading a few particular comments in various threads today, I was reminded of a bit of a "concern" I have with those of us who claim to be "libertarian," generally speaking. I don't know that I'd be considered libertarian; I suppose I would--certainly when compared to the two popular flavors of politics we have right now. But I would say that I am more of an advocate of "individual liberty," NOT returning to a primitive ape-like existence and not because I am any big advocate of some sort of free-for-all contest or competition.
HOWEVER, if my take on it is correct (not saying it is, just assuming here for the sake of argument), I don't think that some who believe in the concept of individual liberty understand the notion (or agree with it), and certainly seem to not understand what it means in the context of a society living the ideal of "individual liberty" in a functional and universal way.
So, before going into all the particulars of my personal philosophy on the matter, I'll ask those of you who espouse "individual liberty" and "libertarianism" this...
What do you think that philosophy entails?
A) I can do anything I want to anybody and there should be no consequences to my actions, good or bad, because I am free unto myself and thus wholly unrestricted in my behavior toward and actions involving others. To hell with everyone else. I am all that matters.
B) I am free to do as I choose as long as my actions are not injurious or detrimental to others, and as long as my actions do not restrict others from having that same said liberty. I do understand that in a functional society, there are societal consequences to my actions involving others. I am not free to victimize or otherwise badger others. However, having said that, I am under no obligation to support or otherwise fund others, either (though I may choose to do that of my own accord). What I am under obligation to do is respect their liberties as they must respect my own.
C) Something else.
For me, libertarianism and individual liberty does NOT equal law of the jungle or some kind of contest. It equals a nearly non-existent government there only to protect the population from foreign invasion or threats from each other. And it equals the citizenry within said society respecting each other enough to understand that they all share the same liberty. It's basically a society with the motto "hands off." So I'm a "B" from above, for the most part. And You? Thoughts?
In reading a few particular comments in various threads today, I was reminded of a bit of a "concern" I have with those of us who claim to be "libertarian," generally speaking. I don't know that I'd be considered libertarian; I suppose I would--certainly when compared to the two popular flavors of politics we have right now. But I would say that I am more of an advocate of "individual liberty," NOT returning to a primitive ape-like existence and not because I am any big advocate of some sort of free-for-all contest or competition.
HOWEVER, if my take on it is correct (not saying it is, just assuming here for the sake of argument), I don't think that some who believe in the concept of individual liberty understand the notion (or agree with it), and certainly seem to not understand what it means in the context of a society living the ideal of "individual liberty" in a functional and universal way.
So, before going into all the particulars of my personal philosophy on the matter, I'll ask those of you who espouse "individual liberty" and "libertarianism" this...
What do you think that philosophy entails?
A) I can do anything I want to anybody and there should be no consequences to my actions, good or bad, because I am free unto myself and thus wholly unrestricted in my behavior toward and actions involving others. To hell with everyone else. I am all that matters.
B) I am free to do as I choose as long as my actions are not injurious or detrimental to others, and as long as my actions do not restrict others from having that same said liberty. I do understand that in a functional society, there are societal consequences to my actions involving others. I am not free to victimize or otherwise badger others. However, having said that, I am under no obligation to support or otherwise fund others, either (though I may choose to do that of my own accord). What I am under obligation to do is respect their liberties as they must respect my own.
C) Something else.
For me, libertarianism and individual liberty does NOT equal law of the jungle or some kind of contest. It equals a nearly non-existent government there only to protect the population from foreign invasion or threats from each other. And it equals the citizenry within said populace respecting each other enough to understand that they all share the same liberty. It's basically a society with the motto "hands off." So I'm a "B" from above, for the most part. And You? Thoughts?
I think you're confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism and you're entire concept of Libertarianism is severely warped. If you're own worldview borders very closely on the complete absence of laws, you're more of an Anarchists than anything else.
Libertarianism is pretty simple. The government sucks at pretty much everything they do and should do less. The government does have a role keeping the peace, defending the country, helping organize response to disasters and enforcing the law. Laws should be few, they should be fair and they should be very simple.
Being a Libertarian means believing that my right to swing my fist around ends when it hits you in the nose. If I'm not hurting another human being, then I should be free to do as I see fit. I don't consider myself a Libertarian purist, but it's the closest party/ideology that describes my worldview.
Tell you what, rather than jumping to conclusions, how about asking questions??
I think you're confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism and you're entire concept of Libertarianism is severely warped. If you're own worldview borders very closely on the complete absence of laws, you're more of an Anarchists than anything else.
Libertarianism is pretty simple. The government sucks at pretty much everything they do and should do less. The government does have a role keeping the peace, defending the country, helping organize response to disasters and enforcing the law. Laws should be few, they should be fair and they should be very simple.
Being a Libertarian means believing that my right to swing my fist around ends when it hits you in the nose. If I'm not hurting another human being, then I should be free to do as I see fit. I don't consider myself a Libertarian purist, but it's the closest party/ideology that describes my worldview.
Tell you what, rather than jumping to conclusions, how about asking questions??
Did you even read my post? I said almost exactly verbatim what you just did. If you will note, I offered three choices there for a sort of "vote." Read B closely and the very end of my post, and then re-read your post.
In reading a few particular comments in various threads today, I was reminded of a bit of a "concern" I have with those of us who claim to be "libertarian," generally speaking. I don't know that I'd be considered libertarian; I suppose I would--certainly when compared to the two popular flavors of politics we have right now. But I would say that I am more of an advocate of "individual liberty," NOT returning to a primitive ape-like existence and not because I am any big advocate of some sort of free-for-all contest or competition.
HOWEVER, if my take on it is correct (not saying it is, just assuming here for the sake of argument), I don't think that some who believe in the concept of individual liberty understand the notion (or agree with it), and certainly seem to not understand what it means in the context of a society living the ideal of "individual liberty" in a functional and universal way.
So, before going into all the particulars of my personal philosophy on the matter, I'll ask those of you who espouse "individual liberty" and "libertarianism" this...
What do you think that philosophy entails?
A) I can do anything I want to anybody and there should be no consequences to my actions, good or bad, because I am free unto myself and thus wholly unrestricted in my behavior toward and actions involving others. To hell with everyone else. I am all that matters.
B) I am free to do as I choose as long as my actions are not injurious or detrimental to others, and as long as my actions do not restrict others from having that same said liberty. I do understand that in a functional society, there are societal consequences to my actions involving others. I am not free to victimize or otherwise badger others. However, having said that, I am under no obligation to support or otherwise fund others, either (though I may choose to do that of my own accord). What I am under obligation to do is respect their liberties as they must respect my own.
C) Something else.
For me, libertarianism and individual liberty does NOT equal law of the jungle or some kind of contest. It equals a nearly non-existent government there only to protect the population from foreign invasion or threats from each other. And it equals the citizenry within said populace respecting each other enough to understand that they all share the same liberty. It's basically a society with the motto "hands off." So I'm a "B" from above, for the most part. And You? Thoughts?
Ancap here.
The obvious answer is B.
Libertarianism is based on the non-aggression principle (NAP). Basically, don't murder, rape, steal, trespass, defraud, or libel. My rights end at your property line.
Individuals all have self-ownership, which means that we are free to do anything we want to our bodies and our property as long as it doesn't affect yours.
If you would like to learn more, these are by most standards the best introduction to libertarian philosophy:
I think you're confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism and you're entire concept of Libertarianism is severely warped. If you're own worldview borders very closely on the complete absence of laws, you're more of an Anarchists than anything else.
Libertarianism is pretty simple. The government sucks at pretty much everything they do and should do less. The government does have a role keeping the peace, defending the country, helping organize response to disasters and enforcing the law. Laws should be few, they should be fair and they should be very simple.
Being a Libertarian means believing that my right to swing my fist around ends when it hits you in the nose. If I'm not hurting another human being, then I should be free to do as I see fit. I don't consider myself a Libertarian purist, but it's the closest party/ideology that describes my worldview.
Tell you what, rather than jumping to conclusions, how about asking questions??
I, too, was once a minarchist.
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.
