Notes from a Libertarian Paradise

[TerranceL]

An American travels to a poor country and looks down upon it with derision.

Dawww that's cute, the ugly american stereotype in play I see.

And for those too slow to understand it.... limited government doesn't mean no government.

 

[Joykins]

Thanks for the reference. I just listened to Jerry Jeff Walker's "Gringo in Belize". He makes a pretty good case for not moving to Belize.

*reads lyrics* I'd say.

Not too different than the impression I got from my officemate, at that.

 

[NightHawkeye]

*reads lyrics* I'd say.

I really like the song though ...

... just couldn't link it due to Jerry Jeff's fondness for "colorful" language.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I don't understand why some people think 'big government' is always anti-liberty.

Big or small isn't necessarily the key factor when it comes to liberty imo. Certainly if the state has been invested with the power to control peoples private lives and outlaw "victimless crimes" then that could be an example of big = anti-liberty. Examples of this would be outlawing abortion, outlawing the adult use of drugs / "war on drugs", banning firearms, outlawing sodomy, outlawing prostitution, etc.. Similarly an excessively large and intrusive intelligence arm of the government (The NSA spying for the "War on Terror", etc.) can be an example of big = anti-liberty as well. A massive military, the armed wing of the gov't, that is constantly in use to play world cop and dominate the world can be anti-liberty as well. When it comes to social safety net programs such as welfare and food stamps, then big isn't anti-liberty though. In fact having decent living conditions and adequate food and housing makes it easier to exercise ones rights. Strangly this later instance where big doesn't equal anti-liberty is the one area where Right wingers seem to complain most about "big government" while they ignore the areas of big government and state overreach that actually do pose a danger.

I'll admit, that at least recently (probably because it gives them another reason to complain about Obama), some Right wingers have complained about excessive spying. They didn't seem to complain when Bush was doing the same thing and I doubt they will continue to complain when another Republican becomes president though. This seems like a target of opportunity rather than a real issue that Conservatives have traditionally united around. Back before Obama they were all about the state having the power necessary to "fight the war on terror" via spying and the Patriot act and all that jazz.

::edit:: Conservatives do tend to stand up for the second amendment thought whereas liberals tend to oppose it so on that issue I can give them props.

 

[Creech]

Libertarianism is really a leftist ideology. As a conservative, I have no problem rejecting libertarianism.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Libertarianism is really a leftist ideology. As a conservative, I have no problem rejecting libertarianism.

As a conservative, I would presume you at least appreciate liberty.

 

[Creech]

As a conservative, I would presume you at least appreciate liberty.

Liberty is good, but not the kind of Liberty that Libertarians support. Libertarianism is a form of liberalism that is totally destructive to a traditional conservative society.

 

[dies-l]

Well said.

People tend to demonize ideologies they disagree with by finding an extreme example... much like this article has done.

I've often had similar conversations with people and as soon as you mention that you're a libertarian, they instantly resort to the old standby rebuttal of "well, what about hospitals, bridges, roads, etc... etc..." ...as if it has to be one extreme or the other (anarchy with no infrastructure; or big government)

There's a lot of middle ground between zero taxes and no infrastructure, and where we're at now as a nation.

I think one of our fellow Libertarians, Mr. Penn J, sums it up quite nicely...

Penn Jillette - "Let's talk about bridges after we're out of Afghanistan." - YouTube


I also noticed that you've changed your icon from Democrat to Libertarian (if I'm not confusing you with another poster???)

Welcome aboard

Good video. You're right; I did switch from Dem to Lib sometime last year. The last straw for me was the Snowden revelations, learning about the drone programs, and watching our Democratic President (the one that ran on a campaign of ending the stupid wars we were already in) actively pursuing an imperialistic and equally stupid war with Syria. As one poster has encapsulated in his sig artwork, I realized that Obama was not all that different than all that I had come to despise about Bush (and hence, why I had become a Democrat). I equally realized that Democratic party opposes tyranny when it is committed by Republicans (and vice versa). I had once aligned with the Democratic party, believing that to advance my career party loyalty would be helpful and that the Democratic party was the lesser of two evils. I have since come to the conclusion that there is so little difference that I cannot, in good conscience, align myself with a system that presents those two as the only viable options. I guess I would still see the Dems as the lesser of two evils in the same way that I would see crack as a lesser evil than meth. But, I'd really prefer to have more than two pretty bad choices to pick from.

 

[dies-l]

Liberty is good, but not the kind of Liberty that Libertarians support. Libertarianism is a form of liberalism that is totally destructive to a traditional conservative society.

What other kind of liberty is there? If what you want is government to impose your values, liberty where you want liberty and control where you want others to be controlled, then you are really opposing the very notion of liberty.

For example, as a libertarian with sympathies to the left, I've had to come to terms with the 2nd Amendment. I don't like guns; I don't own any guns; I never want to to own a gun; and I am suspicious of people who insist on having them. But, I don't want the government to ban them; it is a liberty that I wish less people would exercise, but it is a liberty nonetheless, and I don't want the government restricting liberties, even when it is a liberty that I personally don't approve of.

 

[Creech]

What other kind of liberty is there? If what you want is government to impose your values, liberty where you want liberty and control where you want others to be controlled, then you are really opposing the very notion of liberty.

For example, as a libertarian with sympathies to the left, I've had to come to terms with the 2nd Amendment. I don't like guns; I don't own any guns; I never want to to own a gun; and I am suspicious of people who insist on having them. But, I don't want the government to ban them; it is a liberty that I wish less people would exercise, but it is a liberty nonetheless, and I don't want the government restricting liberties, even when it is a liberty that I personally don't approve of.

I believe in a liberty in which basic rights are respected for all. Libertarians believe in a kind of liberty that is highly individualistic and terrible for a civilized and conservative society.

 

[TerranceL]

Liberty is good, but not the kind of Liberty that Libertarians support. Libertarianism is a form of liberalism that is totally destructive to a traditional conservative society.

Those who do adore big government would find it destructive.

 

[TerranceL]

As one poster has encapsulated in his sig artwork, I realized that Obama was not all that different than all that I had come to despise about Bush (and hence, why I had become a Democrat).

I used to get so much flack for that in private messages.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Liberty is good, but not the kind of Liberty that Libertarians support. Libertarianism is a form of liberalism that is totally destructive to a traditional conservative society.

You lost me here...

Libertarianism is is the form of liberty closest to what the founders intended (IE: Conservative...very conservative).

If by the term "traditional" you mean 'closest to what the framers intended'...

Now, if you're using the word "Conservative" and "traditional" in the sense that the religious right uses it...no libertarianism won't fit that mold (nor should it).

The religious right would say that I'm very liberal for supporting free speech to the degree that I feel that people should be able to say whatever they want on the radio, if someone doesn't like it, they can change the station...many religious republicans would say my position on that is ultra-liberal...I would say the opposite, I would say that it's ultra-conservative constitutionally speaking.

The only time liberty is worth anything is when it pertains to having rights that many others don't like...it's easy to uphold liberty on something that everyone agrees on...liberties aren't there to protect ideas that are universally liked, it's when it pertains to something many people disagree on that liberty actually counts for something.

Much like Dies said before, he doesn't like guns, doesn't want one, doesn't like other people having them, however, understands that the right to do so is a liberty granted to us and therefore doesn't support the idea of restricting others' liberties.

Props to him for having a completely 100% consistent position...

Being a libertarian doesn't mean you have to like everyone's individual freedoms, it just means you respect the fact that everyone has those individual freedoms and want to prevent the government from taking them away.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I don't know, maybe we should disband the government and return to chaos?

It is not possible to return to something that never existed.

I always find these questions to be rather silly. You use your brain to figure out what is just, and then you convince other people in a democracy to agree. Humans rights are a thing too to consider.

I have used my brain to figure out what is just yet not everyone agrees with me. Are they all evil and can their disagreement with my perfect vision of right and wrong simply be ignored no matter how much they protest that they are not evil just have a differing opinion?
Democracy= majority vote. Therefore whatever is popular with more people than not is just. Human rights in this scenario are whatever 50% plus one at any given time want them to be. A constitution would possibly insist that there are certain rights that no amount of unpopularity would be able legally strip from the citizen or that no right to another particular thing exists no matter how popular it might be to declare that it did.

Maybe you were asking a genuine question, and in that case sorry, and I hope you don't take it as an insult. I find just find such questions imply that we should give up trying to make a decent society.

I think the question implies that we are not all in agreement upon what constitutes a decent society and that one person's ideal society is another person's worst nightmare.

Whether constitutions and governments should claim to be just (or attempting just government in their own fallible way) is debatable, but the people voting should be voting based on what they think is a just political and legal system. Just in the sense of legal justice, not moral justice.

It is impossible to consider anything to be justice without making a moral judgement.

I agree that people disagree.

Good.

I agree that a constitution should limit the government. That doesn't prevent me from saying that constitutions can be wrong, and should be changed if wrong. ie: They may not limit governments correctly.

I would agree with that and IMO a good Constitution has within it mechanisms for changing like the amendment process for the US Constitution. There are too many that prefer to just change it at any time in any manner that they wish rather than go through the proper processes spelled out in the document for changing it.

I'm just saying we should ask what is 'just' first, rather than limit our thoughts by a constitution made by fallible people.

I do believe that ought to precede the writing of any constitution and usually does. I also think that those coming after rather than ignoring that fact and assuming not only that they are somehow less fallible but also that they are the first to consider what might be just, ought to study the ideas of the writers on that score and see if those writer's thoughts were reasonable before dismissing them as lesser beings of lesser intelligence or moral fiber that could never understand the complexities of the modern world or their thoughts as antiquated and out of touch. Finally, if a Constitution is indeed in place, and the rules it sets forth for limiting government and safegaurding the rights of the populace are able to be amended to suit new or different situations or new or different POVs by a straight forward and easily understood process, why wouldn't an honest government official attempt to amend that Constitution by using those rules( especially after taking a solemn oath to protect and defend that Constitution ) rather than circumventing the Constitution altogether in order to be sure that his/ her will was what was carried out ? A will not only not necessarily the will of the consensus of the citizenry but not necessarily what is just but only concerned with that which was desired by that particular official on a certain subject.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You lost me here...

Libertarianism is is the form of liberty closest to what the founders intended (IE: Conservative...very conservative).

If by the term "traditional" you mean 'closest to what the framers intended'...

Now, if you're using the word "Conservative" and "traditional" in the sense that the religious right uses it...no libertarianism won't fit that mold (nor should it).

The religious right would say that I'm very liberal for supporting free speech to the degree that I feel that people should be able to say whatever they want on the radio, if someone doesn't like it, they can change the station...many religious republicans would say my position on that is ultra-liberal...I would say the opposite, I would say that it's ultra-conservative constitutionally speaking.

The only time liberty is worth anything is when it pertains to having rights that many others don't like...it's easy to uphold liberty on something that everyone agrees on...liberties aren't there to protect ideas that are universally liked, it's when it pertains to something many people disagree on that liberty actually counts for something.

Much like Dies said before, he doesn't like guns, doesn't want one, doesn't like other people having them, however, understands that the right to do so is a liberty granted to us and therefore doesn't support the idea of restricting others' liberties.

Props to him for having a completely 100% consistent position...

Being a libertarian doesn't mean you have to like everyone's individual freedoms, it just means you respect the fact that everyone has those individual freedoms and want to prevent the government from taking them away.

Libertarianism is somewhat close to traditional Liberalism and is indeed in opposition to traditional Conservatism. Modern Liberalism's attitude toward the size and scope of government is much more akin to the traditional Conservatism of the Alexander Hamilton variety than it is to the traditional Liberalism of the James Madison variety.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Libertarianism is somewhat close to traditional Liberalism and is indeed in opposition to traditional Conservatism. Modern Liberalism's attitude toward the size and scope of government is much more akin to the traditional Conservatism of the Alexander Hamilton variety than it is to the traditional Liberalism of the James Madison variety.

I'm failing to see how libertarianism has anything to do with liberalism in the context of our constitution and how the US was framed.

I understand that our constitution would be considered a liberal document by pre-constitution standards, but once that framework is set, that original framework now becomes the conservative position moving forward (meaning the constitution was a radical document for the time, but once it was defined as THE document, keeping it in tact and wanting to stick with and conserve those principles becomes the conservative position)

 

[Creech]

You lost me here...

Libertarianism is is the form of liberty closest to what the founders intended (IE: Conservative...very conservative).

If by the term "traditional" you mean 'closest to what the framers intended'...

Now, if you're using the word "Conservative" and "traditional" in the sense that the religious right uses it...no libertarianism won't fit that mold (nor should it).

The religious right would say that I'm very liberal for supporting free speech to the degree that I feel that people should be able to say whatever they want on the radio, if someone doesn't like it, they can change the station...many religious republicans would say my position on that is ultra-liberal...I would say the opposite, I would say that it's ultra-conservative constitutionally speaking.

The only time liberty is worth anything is when it pertains to having rights that many others don't like...it's easy to uphold liberty on something that everyone agrees on...liberties aren't there to protect ideas that are universally liked, it's when it pertains to something many people disagree on that liberty actually counts for something.

Much like Dies said before, he doesn't like guns, doesn't want one, doesn't like other people having them, however, understands that the right to do so is a liberty granted to us and therefore doesn't support the idea of restricting others' liberties.

Props to him for having a completely 100% consistent position...

Being a libertarian doesn't mean you have to like everyone's individual freedoms, it just means you respect the fact that everyone has those individual freedoms and want to prevent the government from taking them away.

"Conservatives do not have libertarian roots. I keep hearing rhetoric about 'conservatives returning to their libertarian roots' and it makes no sense. Libertarianism is a different thing entirely. Conservatives (or the Right-wing) were the supporters of traditional society in the French Revolution. They favoured the monarchy, inequality, the church and traditional life. The Left-wing was made up of proto-communists, socialists and libertarians. They all sat on the Left side of the National Assembly while traditionalists sat on the Right side - hence the terminology. Classical Liberalism is what libertarianism came from. And as the name indicates, it is not a Right-wing ideology. It's an ideology of the Left. Of course, in the US system the so-called 'Right' has always been largely made up of Classical Liberals (like Thomas Jefferson), meaning that the 'Right' in the USA system is really just a centre-Left movement. The USA has always been a centre-Left society that has continually moved further and further to the Left. The USA doesn't have a Right-wing movement because it is a Leftist experiment in combining different peoples and cultures under the same central government. The only real Right in the USA comes from the traditional South. And it is rejected by the system." - Michael Cushman

 

[NightHawkeye]

"Conservatives do not have libertarian roots. I keep hearing rhetoric about 'conservatives returning to their libertarian roots' and it makes no sense. Libertarianism is a different thing entirely. Conservatives (or the Right-wing) were the supporters of traditional society in the French Revolution. They favoured the monarchy, inequality, the church and traditional life.

Yep. That's the European right-wing. It's at the root of fascism and Nazism. I recommend against it.

The Left-wing was made up of proto-communists, socialists and libertarians. They all sat on the Left side of the National Assembly while traditionalists sat on the Right side - hence the terminology. Classical Liberalism is what libertarianism came from. And as the name indicates, it is not a Right-wing ideology. It's an ideology of the Left. Of course, in the US system the so-called 'Right' has always been largely made up of Classical Liberals (like Thomas Jefferson), meaning that the 'Right' in the USA system is really just a centre-Left movement. The USA has always been a centre-Left society that has continually moved further and further to the Left.

Not really. The problem is that politics doesn't simplify to left-right. It's more of a circular spectrum.

The US has moved more in the direction of big government and state control instead of liberty.

The USA doesn't have a Right-wing movement ...

True, at least the USA doesn't have a right-wing movement in the European sense.

... because it is a Leftist experiment in combining different peoples and cultures under the same central government.

Not sure that's entirely accurate ...

The only real Right in the USA comes from the traditional South.

Sadly, true ... as embodied by the Democrat party ... which hasn't changed its tactics much at all since the days when it was allied with the KKK.

And it is rejected by the system." - Michael Cushman

If only that were true.

 

[Creech]

Yep. That's the European right-wing. It's at the root of fascism and Nazism. I recommend against it.

Any group of people can do any bad thing under any ideology.

Not really. The problem is that politics doesn't simplify to left-right. It's more of a circular spectrum.

I disagree. Although I am against big government, I do not think conservatism is simply about small government at all. It's all about world view. I think it definitely possible to be a small government liberal (libertarian) and a big government conservative/nationalist (Francisco Franco).

The US has moved more in the direction of big government and state control instead of liberty.

I agree

True, at least the USA doesn't have a right-wing movement in the European sense.

Agreed.

Not sure that's entirely accurate ...

Explain

Sadly, true ... as embodied by the Democrat party ... which hasn't changed its tactics much at all since the days when it was allied with the KKK.

I'm confused what you mean. The Democratic Party of the 19th century was heavily conservative. The KKK was a Southern conservative reaction to Reconstruction imposed by Radical Republicans (radical liberals) from the North. Sense then, the Democratic Party has thoroughly embraced equality, democracy, and universalism.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Any group of people can do any bad thing under any ideology.

An over-generalization ... though I agree in part.

I disagree. Although I am against big government, I do not think conservatism is simply about small government at all. It's all about world view. I think it definitely possible to be a small government liberal (libertarian) and a big government conservative/nationalist (Francisco Franco).

Agreed.

Explain ...

The US is certainly an experiment. People from literally every other place on this earth have come to the US because it offered opportunity. No promises, no guarantees ... simply an opportunity to make a better life for themselves using their own God-given talents and aspirations.

I'm confused what you mean. The Democratic Party of the 19th century was heavily conservative. The KKK was a Southern conservative reaction to Reconstruction imposed by Radical Republicans (radical liberals) from the North. Sense then, the Democratic Party has thoroughly embraced equality, democracy, and universalism.

Populism and labor have been the strengths of the Democrat party about a century. The KKK was one aspect of that which the Democrat party endorsed as long as it was politically expedient and enhanced their goals to achieve political power. As for the Democrat party embracing equality and democracy, any Democrat claims to the moral high ground would seem to be largely exaggerated.