Question about the libertarian attitude in Wyoming (church, conservative)

[BennyPhoenix]

If the ACLU believed that civil liberties were absolutes then they would be for the 2nd amendment, against income taxes, against govt healthcare...

[travelcat]

Seeing there's some confusion between liberalism and libertarianism, I thought I'd consult Wikipedia. Everything in italics is from that website:

The political platform of the Libertarian Party [emphasis mine] reflects that group's particular brand of libertarianism, favoring minimally regulated, Laissez-faire markets, strong civil liberties, minimally regulated migration across borders, and non-interventionism in foreign policy that respects freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries.

And from another page:

Libertarianism is a term adopted by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which advocate the maximization of individual liberty and the minimization or even abolition of the state. Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum, ranging from pro-property to anti-property, from minarchist to openly anarchist.

All forms of libertarianism support strong personal rights rights to life and liberty, but do not agree on the subject of property. The best known formulation of libertarianism supports free market capitalism by advocating a right to private property, including property in the means of production, minimal government regulation of that property, minimal taxation, and rejection of the welfare state, all within the context of the rule of law. A number of countries worldwide have libertarian parties which run candidates for political office.

Interestingly enough, liberalism is supposedly a strong belief in personal freedom... but somehow that's gotten well twisted in today's American politics.

What we have in politics today is Social Liberalism:


Social liberalism, (sometimes called new liberalism (as it was originally termed), modern liberalism, and left-liberalism is a reformulation of 19th century, which rests on the view that unrestrained capitalism is a hindrance to true freedom. Instead of the "negative freedom" of classical liberalism, social liberals offered "positive freedom" that would allow individuals to prosper with public assistance in health, education and welfare.This later included government intervention in the economy to provide full employment and protection of human rights. These policies were widely adopted and implemented in European and Western democracies, particularly following the Second World War.Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left

So here's my take:

Libertarians believe in personal liberty. They feel the best way to this end is with minimal interference in people's lives - small government is an aspect of this.

Apparently classic liberalism also meant a belief in personal freedom. However, what we have in the US today is social liberalism - that the means for people to have more personal freedom is to be helped by social programs when times get bad.

Modern liberalism sounds a lot like advocating socialism (which is an economic term like capitalism, not a political one like liberalism or conservativism).

Making libertarianism diametrically opposed to liberalism as it is practiced today in the US today.

I also delved into the pages for socialism, conservatism, and a few others. There will now be a pause while my head explodes.

[WyoNewk]

*Waits and listens for the explosion*

That's what I understood libertarianism to mean, which is much more closely aligned to conservative/Republican thinking than to liberal/Democratic philosophy. Conservatives have traditionally worked for less government control, especially less federal government control. Liberals (progressives) generally want more federal controls. If not, I probably wouldn't consider them liberals at all.

[NVDave]

Originally Posted by xavierob82

You want libertarianism? Move to Vermont. Liberal gun laws and gays can get married. You can't get anymore libertarian than that.

Vermont doesn't allow prostitution or brothels. They're very restrictive as to what you can do with your property; they're positively in love with zoning and planning regulations. They have relatively high local property taxes, they have an individual and corporate income tax, and Vermont is relatively hostile to business formation.

For me, the restrictions on businesses, especially small businesses, is one of my hot buttons with a lot of eastern states. States whine about how their businesses aren't paying enough in taxes, but then they keep making their business taxes more and more punitive, which results in less business activity. Vermont follows this model.

Wyoming, South Dakota and Nevada are #1, 2 and 3 respectively for their friendliness to business formation in 2009, according to the Tax Foundation. Vermont is #43 in 2009. New Hampshire, by comparison, is ranked #8.

Wyoming, BTW, has been ranked #1 for business formation for years and years. The same states show up in the top five most years, WY, SD, NV, AK, FL, but the bottom 10 have shifted around a bit in the last 10 years. Vermont used to be #40 only a few years ago.

[BennyPhoenix]

It is cheap to incorporate in Wyoming.
It had cost about 20 times as much to incorporate in Calif. I dont know if that ratio is still the same.

[xavierob82]

Advocating open borders? A strict seperation of church and state? Legalization of drugs? Legalization of prostitution? Pro-gay marriage? Anti-Iraq war? Anti-"military industrial" complex? Anti-racial profiling? Being pro-ACLU?

That doesn't sound like conservatism to me. That sounds alot like modern-day liberalism, as practiced today in early 21st century America. As a matter of fact, anyone who favors all or mostly all of the above "libertarian" positions on these issues would authomatically and without question be labeled a "left wing liberal" by conservative critics, who will take a contrary stance on all or most these "libertarian" positions.

The truth is, libertarianism in its true form takes an absolutist view on economic and social liberties. Neither of which is embodied in modern day liberalism or conservatism.

My whole point was, that unless Wyoming favors gay marriage, is very anti-war, is very permissive on views regarding gays and drugs, then it isn't much of a libertarian state.

You want to move to a libertarian state? The closest thing to such a creature would be Vermont.

[BennyPhoenix]

Libertarianism is not anti-war. It is against war that does not attack a threat to the US. Some would say Iraq was a threat to us, some would say it was not.
Do not confuse the Libertarian party with the philosophy of Libertarianism. They are not the same.
The democrat party is hardly democratic and the republican party is not truly republican.

[travelcat]

What Benny said Libertarianism does have a wide interpretation on the best way to allow people personal freedom. At one end is anarchy, at the other is something that looks a lot like social liberalism.

I think most of us are a little right of middle - small government, follow the Constitution as the founders MEANT, get a damn job instead of getting paid by the gov't to do nothing, and the concept that people should take responsibility for their own actions - if you can't keep a job because you're irresponsible, unreliable, whatever, then tough crap, I don't want to pay (through taxes) for you to sit on your butt!

Yea, it is a bit insular (that's not the word but I can't think of the right one) but there's a lot of danger in spreading our military around to wars we don't need to fight.

There's more but I've got to go get some dessert. We all have to have our priorities

[jdavid93225]

Originally Posted by WyoNewk

Huh???????????????????????

That's what I was thinking!

[jdavid93225]

Originally Posted by xavierob82

No, the ACLU believes that individual civil liberties are absolute. The reason many conservatives loathe the ACLU is because conservatism is incompatible with absolute individual liberty and conservatives do not believe in the separation of church and state.

So why is it then, that when someone makes a display (verbally or visually) of a religious theme in public, the ACLU and their cohorts get all up in arms, especially when that religion is Christianity? Teachers and other "public" figures can't make a statement of their faith without being scolded (or worse) for doing so. A prime example of this is that they have to teach "Evolution," but can't say they believe the world was created by "intelligent design."

What is this separation of church and state of which you speak? There is no such thing in the Constitution of the United States. In regards to religion, the Constitution simply says that the Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion", or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.