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.
1. Statists: Any individual that believes in the moral and logical legitimacy of involuntary government to any degree. By default, you are political. Your philosophy, whether you admit it or not, is simple - at birth the individual cedes all its rights to the prevailing government that rules over the geographic territory of the birth. As this individual lives his/her life the government cedes rights and privileges back to the individual as it sees fit.
2. Non-statists/Anarchists: Any individual that doesn't believe in the moral and logical legitimacy of involuntary government to any degree. By default, you are apolitical. Your philosophy is that the individual is born free of any contractual obligations to anyone. You retain all your rights. The only way to alter your rights is via legitimate consent which requires that both parties be free from duress and have the cognitive ability to do so.
This.
There is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, so you either believe in the legitimacy of an involuntary government that has higher claim on your life than you do (for the entirety of your life), or you don't. All the talk of individual nuance is simply rationalizing to avoid cognitive dissonance. If you believe an involuntary government should legitimately possess even just one invented power/right over anyone that no individual possesses...then you believe in the legitimacy of the concept itself, ad once you've made the one exception, you have made all of them. If you believe government can grant itself power over you for A, B or C, then you believe they can grant themselves power over you for everything else.
So you either believe in that legitimacy, or you don't, and there is no middle ground. It is a purely binary thing, and all the yeah but exception making is trying to be a little bit pregnant.
There is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, so you either believe in the legitimacy of an involuntary government that has higher claim on your life than you do (for the entirety of your life), or you don't. All the talk of individual nuance is simply rationalizing to avoid cognitive dissonance. If you believe an involuntary government should legitimately possess even just one invented power/right over anyone that no individual possesses...then you believe in the legitimacy of the concept itself, ad once you've made the one exception, you have made all of them. If you believe government can grant itself power over you for A, B or C, then you believe they can grant themselves power over you for everything else.
So you either believe in that legitimacy, or you don't, and there is no middle ground. It is a purely binary thing, and all the yeah but exception making is trying to be a little bit pregnant.
Totally false. You can believe there are functions that are in the realm of government and others that are not.
There is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, so you either believe in the legitimacy of an involuntary government that has higher claim on your life than you do (for the entirety of your life), or you don't. All the talk of individual nuance is simply rationalizing to avoid cognitive dissonance. If you believe an involuntary government should legitimately possess even just one invented power/right over anyone that no individual possesses...then you believe in the legitimacy of the concept itself, ad once you've made the one exception, you have made all of them. If you believe government can grant itself power over you for A, B or C, then you believe they can grant themselves power over you for everything else.
So you either believe in that legitimacy, or you don't, and there is no middle ground. It is a purely binary thing, and all the yeah but exception making is trying to be a little bit pregnant.
Beliefs aren't "binary". One could be a little bit atheist and a little bit Catholic. A little bit environmentalist and still drive a gas-guzzler and eat meat. A little bit fond of one's neighborhood and still clamoring to move. A little bit proud of one's university and still regretting that it's not an Ivy-League school.
Any concentration of power threatens the rights and privacy of the individual... any concentration. This could be government. It could be a church, or a community organization, or a local gang or mafia. It could be a corporation, or a union. It could be anything. The first job of government is to stand as placeholder to muscle aside competing concentrations of power. The first job of all such other concentrations of power is to oppose government power-grab.
I am no less constrained by a private security service than I am by the official police. It gives me no solace if I'm beaten up by a private security guard, rather than a policeman.
Most of the libertarians I know were originally republicans and tend to lean more conservative. There's a wide spectrum of how people identify themselves as libertarians from limited government to anarchy but one thing I noticed with them all is they are against any expansion of the government. So any govt social programs, health care, etc are complete non-starters for them which tends to make them despise liberals more than their conservative counterparts.
For the record, when I referenced the Equal Pay Act of 1963, I was speaking about my personal position, not the position most Libertarians hold. I feel that if a woman and man work at the same job, have the same level of seniority, and have the same qualifications, they should be paid the same. I believe this is a 14th amendment equal protection clause issue and that under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was appropriate because of wage discrimination that occurred at that time.
I generally agree with you though, which is why I am opposed to the federal minimum wage law.
1 and 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUO725uDpbo
3. I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, but I don't think it's a strong argument to suggest that because there was one bigot on one candidates campaign that all Libertarians share that person's views. It's just silly.
4. Libertarians started the tea party, unfortunately Trump's base took it over and the discussion went from one about economics to one about immigration and trade.
I think you are generalizing a bit too much here. There are millions of Americans who hold Libertarian views. They are a diverse group just like there is diversity amongst conservatives, liberals, centrists, and everyone else.
Republican is a political party, Libertarian is an ideology though obviously there is a Libertarian Party. Either way, it is not another word for Republican.
Most Libertarians, myself included, want to eliminate all federal income taxes and replace them with taxes and fees on consumption. So you are wrong on your point about tax cuts. As far as Universal Basic Income, how are you going to fund UBI? The answer is, you either have to print the money or tax it from someone to redistribute it. Libertarians are opposed to fiat currency and redistribution of wealth.
Also, it is not just the wealthy who are paying taxes:
Glad to see the PGP Foundation information being used. I knew his granddaughter growing up and met him once. Really smart guy.
Totally false. You can believe there are functions that are in the realm of government and others that are not.
Your stated belief makes you a statist, because you believe in the legitimacy of involuntary government and the government having a higher claim on some area/function of of your life than you possess. What brand/degree/flavor of statist you choose to self-identify as...whatever, couldn't care less...but you are a statist if you believe in any legitimacy whatsoever in involuntary government.
Libertarians are statists, and generally of the most illogical kind. They think there is some minimal form of tyranny and involuntary government that works and makes sense. It's like a hooker who convinces you that if they only sell their bodies to pay rent and utilities, then that makes them virtuous. Uhm yeah...not so much. At least Dems and Pubs get it and just accept life on the corner, working for their pimp. They may argue who is the real "bottom b_1_tch" and who isn't, and who has the best Daddy and all that, but thy aren't deluding themselves about what they are. They are down with the game. Libertarians think they can work the corner - just a little bit, mind you - and still call themselves "innocent girl next door" and all that. Nope, doesn't work that way.
I should know...I struggled in that libertarian "want it both ways" false logic for a long time. I was a statist who couldn't let go and just go all the way with logical consistency. I did my annual act of violence with voting, I believed in some amount of tyranny that "made sense" and all that. One day, I just ran out of self-delusion and rationalizations. I could finally see.
There are exactly two kinds of people - statists and non-statists. You are one or the other, period.
Libertarians aren't as hypocritical as the Republican Party. They don't want gov't involvement for the most part and say that. Republicans want it when it suits them, like the Great Bailout when the 08 Recession hit, they had no problem w/ that.
Most of the libertarians I know were originally republicans and tend to lean more conservative. There's a wide spectrum of how people identify themselves as libertarians from limited government to anarchy but one thing I noticed with them all is they are against any expansion of the government. So any govt social programs, health care, etc are complete non-starters for them which tends to make them despise liberals more than their conservative counterparts.
After reading njforlife92's recent posts, I noticed that you'll sometimes see a libertarian rebuke Trump on this site until a Trump supporter immediately pounces on them by dubbing them socialists and Marxists without responding to any of their criticisms. And even if its valid, like Trump's continued corporate welfare, farm bailouts, record fiscal stimulus, and big government protectionist policies, it seems like the TS have no real desire to debate and would rather flee after labeling their libertarian opponent just another crazy liberal.
Are our libertarian friends really leftists like many Trump supporters claim, or do they throw such terms out as a way to shut down any opposing dialogue about Trump which isn't favorable?
Some libertarians are left, some in the middle and some in the right. What they reject is authoritarians from both ends.
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.
Are libertarians leftists?
