Confused Libertarians?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Not meaning to start a controversy, but this is an observation I have made of late, and thought it might make a good thread. We often hear people here and elsewhere, say they are "libertarians" and support the Libertarian party. They will often identify their strong beliefs in individual liberty and freedom, and disdain for governmental control in their personal lives. This often translates in a belief supporting gay marriage, abortion, legalization of marijuana, etc. It may also include anti-war or isolationist sentiments as well. They just don't want the government meddling in their affairs, and this seems to be the fundamental glue among most libertarians. But how many libertarians talk the talk, without actually walking the walk?

For instance, a libertarian might feel it's not the government's business to fund abortions. They may feel it's not right for the federal government to sanction same-sex marriages. They may even believe that communities have the right to establish schools where their children are allowed to say prayers, and the government should stay the hell out of that. Of course, these are not what we typically consider mainstream libertarian views, but a libertarian is supposed to believe in individual freedom, so does that also apply to the individual freedom to be socially conservative? I suppose what I am asking is, does actual libertarian philosophy welcome a two-way street? Or is it all centered around liberal philosophy, cloaked in an ambiguity of libertarianism?

It's fascinating to me how many "libertarians" I talk to, who are completely liberal in their personal social views. They seem to want an overbearing government to enforce liberal social views, under the premise that it's libertarianism. It's okay to have government mandate these liberal ideals, and their "libertarianism" kicks in when it comes to social conservatism. It's almost as if many of them are conflicted and confused as to who they are. They say they are libertarians, but they don't actually believe in total personal freedom and liberty, because that would involve accepting the views of others which might disagree with them.

I will sometimes throw a libertarian a curve ball and tell them, I am a "constitutional libertarian conservative" and they look at me funny. My personal views are, the federal government has a limited role and shouldn't be nearly as involved in our lives as they are, but that state and local governments run by the people, should be free to establish whatever laws and guidelines the people of the community want. If it happens to be socially liberal or conservative, so be it, that's not my business. By the same token, if I want to advocate socially conservative ideals, I should have that freedom and liberty, and outsiders shouldn't have a say.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

For instance, a libertarian might feel it's not the government's business to fund abortions. They may feel it's not right for the federal government to sanction same-sex marriages. They may even believe that communities have the right to establish schools where their children are allowed to say prayers, and the government should stay the hell out of that. Of course, these are not what we typically consider mainstream libertarian views, but a libertarian is supposed to believe in individual freedom, so does that also apply to the individual freedom to be socially conservative? I suppose what I am asking is, does actual libertarian philosophy welcome a two-way street? Or is it all centered around liberal philosophy, cloaked in an ambiguity of libertarianism?

Well that's because social conservatism is diametrically OPPOSED with Libertarianism. The two are polar opposites. Social conservatism cannot be included in libertarianism for the same reason that you cannot subtract two positive numbers and get a greater number as a result. It does not work that way. Anyone who advocates social conservatism (in government) is not a Libertarian.

It's fascinating to me how many "libertarians" I talk to, who are completely liberal in their personal social views.

It shouldn't fascinate you, as Libertarianism is the modern take on classical Liberalism. Therefore the social views of a Libertarian would most certainly be Liberal, and according to the classical definition of the word, so would their political views, though such terms are no longer in vogue.

They say they are libertarians, but they don't actually believe in total personal freedom and liberty, because that would involve accepting the views of others which might disagree with them.

Accepting the power of a majority to dictate behavior of a minority is, again, completely opposed to Libertarian philosophy. Liberty is sacrosanct, and cannot be subverted simply by the wishes of a majority.

state and local governments run by the people, should be free to establish whatever laws and guidelines the people of the community want.

That is in no way Libertarianism. Libertarianism applies at all levels of government. You cannot usurp the rights of the minority in a town any more than you can of a whole nation. It is morally reprehensible.

By the same token, if I want to advocate socially conservative ideals, I should have that freedom and liberty, and outsiders shouldn't have a say.

Advocating socially conservative ideas is fine. Advocating them being enforced by a government agency is not. You are, as I have stated before, a statist.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well that's because social conservatism is diametrically OPPOSED with Libertarianism. The two are polar opposites. Social conservatism cannot be included in libertarianism for the same reason that you cannot subtract two positive numbers and get a greater number as a result. It does not work that way. Anyone who advocates social conservatism (in government) is not a Libertarian.

No, the polar opposite of social conservatism is social liberalism. It has nothing to do with principles of math, libertarianism is a philosophy.

It shouldn't fascinate you, as Libertarianism is the modern take on classical Liberalism. Therefore the social views of a Libertarian would most certainly be Liberal, and according to the classical definition of the word, so would their political views, though such terms are no longer in vogue.

You are making my point, or actually, answering my question... Is libertarianism actually liberalism cloaked in ambiguity? You are saying it is, and I don't agree, I think true libertarianism has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It's about personal liberty and freedom as opposed to governmental control over our lives. A libertarian can be socially liberal or conservative, in that regard.

Accepting the power of a majority to dictate behavior of a minority is, again, completely opposed to Libertarian philosophy. Liberty is sacrosanct, and cannot be subverted simply by the wishes of a majority.

If that is what you think, then you endorse ANARCHY, not libertarianism. All civilized societies have rules, boundaries and limitations. We don't simply live in a world where everyone just does whatever the hell they please all the time. We never will. When that breaks down, society crumbles.

That is in no way Libertarianism. Libertarianism applies at all levels of government. You cannot usurp the rights of the minority in a town any more than you can of a whole nation. It is morally reprehensible.

If you advocate government control to protect the minority, you are not promoting libertarianism. Again, you are espousing a very liberal philosophy.

Advocating socially conservative ideas is fine. Advocating them being enforced by a government agency is not. You are, as I have stated before, a statist.

As I said, many so-called "libertarians" seem to have no problem endorsing governmental control over our lives, as long as they promote liberal ideas and not conservative ones. Libertarianism is supposed to support individual freedom and liberty and not governmental control.

 

[The Dude]

Social conservatives tend to be more trailer trash like you Dixie. Education brings socially liberal people.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Not necessarily true. Trailer trash are more into identity politics than conservatism per se. It's just that conservatives have adopted identity politics to attract trailer trash.

To use an example based on education. I live in Dublin which is one of the most affluent communities in Ohio. Most the people here are college educated and a large percentage of them have graduate level educations but the Presidential polling is pretty evenly split between two demographics both of whom are very educated. The business community here is overwhelmingly in favor of Romney where as the Professional class here is overwhelmingly in favore of Obama. Romney with the business class obviously for his pro business policies and Obama with the Professional class primarily for his competence in governance and because much of the Professional class is appalled by rightwing identity politics.

Having said that social conservatism is for losers. American history has proven that time and time again. From the Revolutionary war, to the progressive era, to the civil rights era, etc, everytime this nation has had a conflict involving social conservatism, the social conservatives have lost and the forces of liberty and freedom have ultimately won. Not some of the time, not part of the time but each and everytime.

The truth is, is that the majority of Americans are center right to moderately conservative on economic issues and the majority of Americans are liberal and egalitarian on social issues. Which is probably the way it ought to be.

 

[Timshel]

There are no schools where children are not allowed to pray. You are confused.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

you have every right to be socially conservative. you don't have the right to force anyone else to be socially conservative.

 

[Timshel]

If you advocate government control to protect the minority, you are not promoting libertarianism. Again, you are espousing a very liberal philosophy.

You are not going to get anywhere with your ridiculous attempts to cotrol the language. Libertarians believe in protecting individual and minority rights from the majority.

As I said, many so-called "libertarians" seem to have no problem endorsing governmental control over our lives, as long as they promote liberal ideas and not conservative ones. Libertarianism is supposed to support individual freedom and liberty and not governmental control.

In Dixie land the government has taken away his right to beat his children and wife, lynch black people, homosexuals and Jews. But most sane people don't see that as an expression of fredom and liberty and it does not matter if you get +50% of your trailer park to agree with you.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Again, Stringy proves he is not a Libertarian, but a LIBERAL!

 

[Timshel]

Again, Stringy proves he is not a Libertarian, but a LIBERAL!

You want to explain?

You don't know what it means to be a libertarian. You seem to think we should support the rights of regional majorities to force their will on individuals or to deny equal protection of the laws to various minority groups. That is your belief as a conservative statist and has nothing to do with libertarianism.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You want to explain?

You don't know what it means to be a libertarian. You seem to think we should support the rights of regional majorities to force their will on individuals or to deny equal protection of the laws to various minority groups. That is your belief as a conservative statist and has nothing to do with libertarianism.

Well, unless you are an anarchist who believes in anarchy and chaos as a preferred method of government, then you have to believe we need some structured way for society to establish laws, boundaries, limitations, regulations, etc. Otherwise, we just do whatever the hell we want, and there is no law. I don't want to live in that society, I've seen Mad Max, and it doesn't appeal to me.

When I think of great Libertarians, I think of Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater, but I bet you don't even consider them as Libertarians. When it comes to federal government, I am very libertarian in my thinking, and I believe a LOT of conservatives these days, share my views. We don't want an overbearing federal government telling everyone what they can and can't do, what is and isn't morally acceptable, and who can and can't do what. That's not Libertarian at all, that's Statism mixed with Fascism and pretty much the opposite of Libertarianism. We want the Federal government out of our lives and out of our business.

Equal protection under the law is a fundamental of the Constitution, and I am insulted that you continue to quip that I don't believe in or support that. Nothing I have ever said, indicates such a thing. It's just a dishonest approach you have, trying to make me into the bad guy, by inserting this false accusation. Everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law, regardless of their status. This does not mean that minorities get to decide for the majority. That is a LIBERAL philosophy, and again, has NOTHING to do with Libertarian principle. You want a powerful Federal government running around standing up for special interest groups, at the expense of the majority. You don't give a shit about "individual personal liberty" if it somehow contradicts Liberalism. You've proven that repeatedly in this thread, before retreating to the seemingly comfortable confines of endorsing anarchy and lawlessness.

You are a hopeless liberal fanatic who is frustrated with Democrats because they won't enforce liberal ideas on a national level. They won't force religious people in the Bible Belt to accept immorality of same-sex unions by judicial decree, denying them ANY individual liberty to determine their own laws and guidelines. You want to take their individual liberty to do so, and shove it up their asses, by insisting the world live by YOUR standards. Instead of us all being free to live in a state whose laws are conducive with our personal beliefs, you want us all to be shackled to YOUR way of thinking, and YOUR idea of society. That is anything BUT libertarian!

 

[Timshel]

Well, unless you are an anarchist who believes in anarchy and chaos as a preferred method of government, then you have to believe we need some structured way for society to establish laws, boundaries, limitations, regulations, etc. Otherwise, we just do whatever the hell we want, and there is no law. I don't want to live in that society, I've seen Mad Max, and it doesn't appeal to me.

When I think of great Libertarians, I think of Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater, but I bet you don't even consider them as Libertarians. When it comes to federal government, I am very libertarian in my thinking, and I believe a LOT of conservatives these days, share my views. We don't want an overbearing federal government telling everyone what they can and can't do, what is and isn't morally acceptable, and who can and can't do what. That's not Libertarian at all, that's Statism mixed with Fascism and pretty much the opposite of Libertarianism. We want the Federal government out of our lives and out of our business.

Equal protection under the law is a fundamental of the Constitution, and I am insulted that you continue to quip that I don't believe in or support that. Nothing I have ever said, indicates such a thing. It's just a dishonest approach you have, trying to make me into the bad guy, by inserting this false accusation. Everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law, regardless of their status. This does not mean that minorities get to decide for the majority. That is a LIBERAL philosophy, and again, has NOTHING to do with Libertarian principle. You want a powerful Federal government running around standing up for special interest groups, at the expense of the majority. You don't give a shit about "individual personal liberty" if it somehow contradicts Liberalism. You've proven that repeatedly in this thread, before retreating to the seemingly comfortable confines of endorsing anarchy and lawlessness.

You are a hopeless liberal fanatic who is frustrated with Democrats because they won't enforce liberal ideas on a national level. They won't force religious people in the Bible Belt to accept immorality of same-sex unions by judicial decree, denying them ANY individual liberty to determine their own laws and guidelines. You want to take their individual liberty to do so, and shove it up their asses, by insisting the world live by YOUR standards. Instead of us all being free to live in a state whose laws are conducive with our personal beliefs, you want us all to be shackled to YOUR way of thinking, and YOUR idea of society. That is anything BUT libertarian!

You're not a libertarian.

You don't support equal protection of the laws. No one is forcing you to accept gay marriage. You simply cannot deny equal protection by preferencing one class of married couples over another. You are arguing for rights of the collective because you are a thorough statist.

Again, I am what I said I am. I am a libertarian. I support limited government in every sphere. I am not confused. I am not an embarrassed Democrat. I have supported Republicans far more often than Democrats. But Romney is a horrible candidate.

Youre the liar. You have told us all kind of bullshit about yourself and your views. You use lies frequently to support your crappy arguments and even when you and your lies have been disproven you insist on repeating them.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're not a libertarian.

You don't support equal protection of the laws. No one is forcing you to accept gay marriage. You simply cannot deny equal protection by preferencing one class of married couples over another. You are arguing for rights of the collective because you are a thorough statist.

Again, I am what I said I am. I am a libertarian. I support limited government in every sphere. I am not confused. I am not an embarrassed Democrat. I have supported Republicans far more often than Democrats. But Romney is a horrible candidate.

Youre the liar. You have told us all kind of bullshit about yourself and your views. You use lies frequently to support your crappy arguments and even when you and your lies have been disproven you insist on repeating them.

No... I am very libertarian (little L) ...I am not a LIBERAL! Nor am I a fanatic about enforcing MY view on all of society! YOU are BOTH!

Yes, you are trying to force us all to accept gay marriage, and it's NOT denying ANY right to ANY person, to oppose your redefinition. YOU are the statist, trying to apply a state approach to determining my individual liberty to oppose redefining traditional marriage. As I said before, reiterating the point, YOU are a LIBERAL, not a LIBERTARIAN!

YOU don't support limited government, unless it is limited to enforcing liberalist values on society against their will and mandating morality at the federal level. You've said this yourself, in your own posts, in your own words. You have completely refuted that you are a Libertarian by your own self-interests and advocation of those policies, regardless of what society thinks, or other individuals might think. You are a stubborn fanatical LIBERAL who is too ill-equipped intellectually, to formulate rational and logical arguments for what you believe, and you have "adopted" libertarianism as a make-shift shield to protect you from debate. When this fails for you, the only other thing you can think to do, is hurl baseless ad homs and insults at me, or whoever is handing you your ass. Rinse and repeat!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Dixie, do you support torturing suspected terrorists? do you support prohibitions on gay marriage? do you support prohibitions on marijuana? do you support prohibitions on civilian machine gun ownership? If you support any one of those prohibitions, you are not a libertarian.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, do you support torturing suspected terrorists? do you support prohibitions on gay marriage? do you support prohibitions on marijuana? do you support prohibitions on civilian machine gun ownership? If you support any one of those prohibitions, you are not a libertarian.

Those are all liberal suppositions and liberal agenda items. Such suppositions are indicative of liberalism, not libertarianism.

Again, you are the type person who voted for Obama in 2008. How is Gary Johnson hurting Romney?

I don't support government interfering in our lives. I don't support torture, but I do support government interrogating terror suspects. Homosexual people are not being disallowed to marry, they can't marry the same gender, but neither can non-homosexuals. With guns, I don't support government interference in our lives. I support decriminalization of pot at the federal level. The problem you keep running into, by throwing out "causes" and claiming this or that makes you a "libertarian" is that you are proving you're really a liberal and not a libertarian at all. Liberals adopt "causes" and rally around those, advocating a strong central government to support your cause against those who are reluctant. Libertarians don't believe in government interfering with our individual liberties.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Those are all liberal suppositions and liberal agenda items. Such suppositions are indicative of liberalism, not libertarianism.

now how do you figure that? Libertarianism is about getting the government off the peoples backs and out of our lives. every single one of those mentioned items is a keynote of Libertarianism.

Again, you are the type person who voted for Obama in 2008. How is Gary Johnson hurting Romney?

Based on your severely limited knowledge of Libertarianism, you presume to assume I voted for Obama?

I don't support government interfering in our lives. I don't support torture, but I do support government interrogating terror suspects.

redefining torture to exclude waterboarding is not a Libertarian position. It is a statist/authoritarian position at best.

Homosexual people are not being disallowed to marry, they can't marry the same gender, but neither can non-homosexuals.

wanting government involved in marriage is not a Libertarian position, it is a religiously totalitarian position.

With guns, I don't support government interference in our lives. I support decriminalization of pot at the federal level. The problem you keep running into, by throwing out "causes" and claiming this or that makes you a "libertarian" is that you are proving you're really a liberal and not a libertarian at all. Liberals adopt "causes" and rally around those, advocating a strong central government to support your cause against those who are reluctant. Libertarians don't believe in government interfering with our individual liberties.

you crack me up. you're completely delusional about political parties anymore.

 

[Timshel]

No... I am very libertarian (little L) ...I am not a LIBERAL! Nor am I a fanatic about enforcing MY view on all of society! YOU are BOTH!

Yes, you are trying to force us all to accept gay marriage, and it's NOT denying ANY right to ANY person, to oppose your redefinition. YOU are the statist, trying to apply a state approach to determining my individual liberty to oppose redefining traditional marriage. As I said before, reiterating the point, YOU are a LIBERAL, not a LIBERTARIAN!

YOU don't support limited government, unless it is limited to enforcing liberalist values on society against their will and mandating morality at the federal level. You've said this yourself, in your own posts, in your own words. You have completely refuted that you are a Libertarian by your own self-interests and advocation of those policies, regardless of what society thinks, or other individuals might think. You are a stubborn fanatical LIBERAL who is too ill-equipped intellectually, to formulate rational and logical arguments for what you believe, and you have "adopted" libertarianism as a make-shift shield to protect you from debate. When this fails for you, the only other thing you can think to do, is hurl baseless ad homs and insults at me, or whoever is handing you your ass. Rinse and repeat!

What have I said in my own words to deny support for limited government, you lying sack of shit? Quote me.

You are a big l Liar/Loser and that is about it. You whine about ad homs in the same sentence that you use them. Your entire argument is an attack on me and you have failed to address any issue.

Nope. There is no force involved in demanding equal protection of the laws. The force precedes it and is not directly connected to it. You just do not understand what the courts do and seek to spread misinformation. Just like no one has to call ObamaCare a tax, not even the government, no one will have to call or accept the marriage of homosexuals a marriage. You will be free to continue being a bigoted douchebag.

The government will simply not be allowed to discriminate in offering benefits to one group/class and not the other. This was the same issues involved in ending Jim Crow or state level laws designed to create inequality. The state cannot use force to tax all of us to only provide benefits to one preferred group unless it serves a valid state interest. For instance, you can't tax everyone and only provide schools that serve the interest of white Christians or give preference to them. The use of force is in the tax. The courts, by demanding equal protection, are not forcing anyone. They are simply ensuring that the government remains neutral.

This is at play in the disgraceful shithole of Alabama's attempt to amend their constitution. The shithole's legislature can use force to tax people to provide for schools or not and the courts are not interfering with that. You simply cannot tax everyone and distribute the benefits to only one group.

Your ad hom falls flat and anyone who cares to can see it only applies to you. I am not gay, black or a woman. I support the ideal of equality before the law and believe it is imperative to limited government. You only support the rights of your own demographic group because you are a cynical dickhead who does not really care about the future or others.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

now how do you figure that? Libertarianism is about getting the government off the peoples backs and out of our lives. every single one of those mentioned items is a keynote of Libertarianism.

It may well be a "keynote" for this year's Libertarian Party, I haven't kept up. I'm just pointing out, these are liberal suppositions and liberal agenda items, they have nothing to do with libertarianism.

Based on your severely limited knowledge of Libertarianism, you presume to assume I voted for Obama?

No, based on your continued belief that government's role is to fight for liberal "causes" and not stay out of our lives.

redefining torture to exclude waterboarding is not a Libertarian position. It is a statist/authoritarian position at best.

I don't think anyone "redefined" anything. The government's #1 fundamental role is to protect the citizens from those who want to do us harm. Most true libertarians agree with this, it is a LIBERAL view that the "rights" of our enemies should be protected by Big Brother.

wanting government involved in marriage is not a Libertarian position, it is a religiously totalitarian position.

I don't want government involved in marriage, I have stated this many times. I also don't want government redefining what marriage means and calling something marriage that isn't marriage, and forcing the people to accept that. Again, this is a liberal "cause" and has nothing to do with a libertarian philosophy. You are FINE with Big Government, as long as they are advocating liberal causes.

you crack me up. you're completely delusional about political parties anymore.

I'm the least delusional one in this particular conversation. You seem to think that Liberalism can masquerade as Libertarianism, and no one will notice. But I notice, and you call me "delusional" for it. Government interference is the same whether it's supporting a liberal "cause" or conservative ones. That's the one point you need to grasp here, to help you with your confusion. What you are espousing is a very LIBERAL philosophy, not a Libertarian one.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What have I said in my own words to deny support for limited government, you lying sack of shit? Quote me.

You are a big l Liar/Loser and that is about it. You whine about ad homs in the same sentence that you use them. Your entire argument is an attack on me and you have failed to address any issue.

Nope. There is no force involved in demanding equal protection of the laws. The force precedes it and is not directly connected to it. You just do not understand what the courts do and seek to spread misinformation. Just like no one has to call ObamaCare a tax, not even the government, no one will have to call or accept the marriage of homosexuals a marriage. You will be free to continue being a bigoted douchebag.

The government will simply not be allowed to discriminate in offering benefits to one group/class and not the other. This was the same issues involved in ending Jim Crow or state level laws designed to create inequality. The state cannot use force to tax all of us to only provide benefits to one preferred group unless it serves a valid state interest. For instance, you can't tax everyone and only provide schools that serve the interest of white Christians or give preference to them. The use of force is in the tax. The courts, by demanding equal protection, are not forcing anyone. They are simply ensuring that the government remains neutral.

This is at play in the disgraceful shithole of Alabama's attempt to amend their constitution. The shithole's legislature can use force to tax people to provide for schools or not and the courts are not interfering with that. You simply cannot tax everyone and distribute the benefits to only one group.

Your ad hom falls flat and anyone who cares to can see it only applies to you. I am not gay, black or a woman. I support the ideal of equality before the law and believe it is imperative to limited government. You only support the rights of your own demographic group because you are a cynical dickhead who does not really care about the future or others.

What/Who is not being equally protected under the law?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I love this thread so far! I am proving to be more of a true libertarian than the so-called libertarians!