- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Libertarians-what are your political beliefs?
Posted on 11/16/14 at 10:41 am
Posted on 11/16/14 at 10:41 am
It's my understanding that libertarians are for very small (no?) government; completely free market capitalism; privately run everything. Is this true? I don't know a ton about Libertarian philosophy so looking for some insight, and I might have a question or 2.
10
Posted on 11/16/14 at 10:52 am to TheIndulger
You pretty much sum it up for a generalized libertarian
Posted on 11/16/14 at 10:55 am to TheIndulger
At its base, it is the natural reaction to the course of increasing power at the federal level that has been happening since the inception of this nation and has now come close to the tipping point, imo.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 11:01 am to TheIndulger
Libertarians put a high value on private property. In fact liberty can be directly linked to ownership. A society which does not respect private property rights cannot be a free society. That's why communist states like the Soviet Union, China and Cuba started with 'land reform'. You cannot own land.
Therefore, govt institutions like the police and the courts are viewed as necessary by libertarians in order to protect private property. This includes things like murder or rape. You own yourself. Therefore violations against your person are actually private property violations.
All other govt intrusions into behavior must pass a litmus test ...'does it protect liberty/property?' If not, the intrusion is wrong.
Example... A libertarian would support laws against drunk driving because a drunk driver can kill you. A libertarian would not support seat belt laws because someone driving without a seat belt cannot kill you.
Same goes with Drug laws and Prostitution. You own yourself. If you wish to harm yourself with drugs or whores that's your right. It does not infringe on the freedom of others.
Hope this helps. Continue studying libertarianism.
Therefore, govt institutions like the police and the courts are viewed as necessary by libertarians in order to protect private property. This includes things like murder or rape. You own yourself. Therefore violations against your person are actually private property violations.
All other govt intrusions into behavior must pass a litmus test ...'does it protect liberty/property?' If not, the intrusion is wrong.
Example... A libertarian would support laws against drunk driving because a drunk driver can kill you. A libertarian would not support seat belt laws because someone driving without a seat belt cannot kill you.
Same goes with Drug laws and Prostitution. You own yourself. If you wish to harm yourself with drugs or whores that's your right. It does not infringe on the freedom of others.
Hope this helps. Continue studying libertarianism.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 11:11 am to Zach
no gun control at all, no background checks, no registration. Anyone can have a heavy duty military level machine gun.
don't invade countries you can't pronounce
reduce military spending.
cut foreign aid to zero except for critical humanitarian needs where millions are starving to death, earthquakes, tsunamis etc.
drugs legalized and non violent drug prisoners pardoned
eliminate the seat belt law which harms no one and gives cops excuse to harass innocent citizens
don't invade countries you can't pronounce
reduce military spending.
cut foreign aid to zero except for critical humanitarian needs where millions are starving to death, earthquakes, tsunamis etc.
drugs legalized and non violent drug prisoners pardoned
eliminate the seat belt law which harms no one and gives cops excuse to harass innocent citizens
Posted on 11/16/14 at 11:19 am to rtts48
quote:
cut foreign aid to zero except for critical humanitarian needs where millions are starving to death, earthquakes, tsunamis etc.
Uh, Malthus says NO.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 11:20 am to Zach
quote:
Same goes with Drug laws and Prostitution. You own yourself. If you wish to harm yourself with drugs or whores that's your right. It does not infringe on the freedom of others.
Exactly. Statists will argue that drugs cause other problems like people knocking off a convenience store to get your fix. But libertarians would say that if someone knocks off a convenience store, you prosecute them for that, not for being a junkie.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 11:22 am to rtts48
quote:
no gun control at all, no background checks, no registration. Anyone can have a heavy duty military level machine gun.
Brilliant idea, and I guess you support bringing guns into classrooms and bars too?
quote:
eliminate the seat belt law which harms no one and gives cops excuse to harass innocent citizens
Posted on 11/16/14 at 11:33 am to Zach
Under Libertarian philosophy, would the national park/monument/historic site system be abolished, and the land sold to private entities to do as they please? Would there be no government run preservation of land/resources/animals?
Posted on 11/16/14 at 11:53 am to TheIndulger
quote:
Brilliant idea, and I guess you support bringing guns into classrooms and bars too?
that's up to whomever owns the classrooms and bars. If they say yes, brink your AK47 into my pub, no one can argue against it.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 11:56 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Statists will argue that drugs cause other problems like people knocking off a convenience store to get your fix. But libertarians would say that if someone knocks off a convenience store, you prosecute them for that, not for being a junkie.
yup, it's the same argument for alcoholics.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:03 pm to TheIndulger
quote:
Under Libertarian philosophy, would the national park/monument/historic site system be abolished, and the land sold to private entities to do as they please?
Yes. What do you think private investors would do with valuable land? Destroy it just for shits and giggles?
quote:
Would there be no government run preservation of land/resources/animals?
Correct. Private enterprise does a much better and more efficient job of preserving land/resources/animals.
This post was edited on 11/16/14 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:04 pm to TheIndulger
Libertarians believe that the free-market is better at just about everything than the federal government except for national defense.
Basic example...
Libertarians believe the government doesn't need to make it illegal to turn away black people from a restaurant.
Why?
Because that restaurant is just losing business if they are turning away black people. Their competitors will see an opportunity and cater to those people that were turned away.
Therefore, the people who are accepting and do the right thing are rewarded, while those who discriminate naturally lose money.
So there is an incentive to do what is right.
They believe the free-market is better at regulation than the government is.
Basic example...
Libertarians believe the government doesn't need to make it illegal to turn away black people from a restaurant.
Why?
Because that restaurant is just losing business if they are turning away black people. Their competitors will see an opportunity and cater to those people that were turned away.
Therefore, the people who are accepting and do the right thing are rewarded, while those who discriminate naturally lose money.
So there is an incentive to do what is right.
They believe the free-market is better at regulation than the government is.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:06 pm to Zach
quote:Bulldoze it and build a strip mall on top of it?
Yes. What do you think private investors would do with valuable land? Destroy it just for shits and giggles?
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:19 pm to TheIndulger
Consent > force
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:20 pm to TheIndulger
Insomuch as Libertarianism exists, it exists in a philosophical sense (not an insult-just a fact) rather than a political sense. As such, it has never lost a single debate, because it exists in it's pristine state on a strictly philosophical plane.
Libertarians tend to be the most original thinkers and are usually the smartest people in the room, imho. Which doesn't change the fact that they are imagining making sausage, rather than actually making sausage. Because they don't really seek to govern, they are overwhelmed by those who do seek to govern.
"Small l" libertarianism, or the expression of Libertarian philosophy by our elected officials of whatever "party" they belong to is key to preserving our liberties, Imho.
When you tell them this, they often get VERY, VERY angry and misconstrue your point to mean something completely different than what you intended.
If we were in fact governed by and for The People through Libertarian principle, most of us would have to assume much more personal responsibility and be a lot sturdier, principled humans. This is unlikely because, well...yeah...
Libertarians tend to be the most original thinkers and are usually the smartest people in the room, imho. Which doesn't change the fact that they are imagining making sausage, rather than actually making sausage. Because they don't really seek to govern, they are overwhelmed by those who do seek to govern.
"Small l" libertarianism, or the expression of Libertarian philosophy by our elected officials of whatever "party" they belong to is key to preserving our liberties, Imho.
When you tell them this, they often get VERY, VERY angry and misconstrue your point to mean something completely different than what you intended.
If we were in fact governed by and for The People through Libertarian principle, most of us would have to assume much more personal responsibility and be a lot sturdier, principled humans. This is unlikely because, well...yeah...
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:27 pm to Zach
quote:
Yes. What do you think private investors would do with valuable land? Destroy it just for shits and giggles?
No, although nothing would be stopping them, but a billionaire or a group of people could potentially buy a place like Yellowstone Park and decide they want it for their own personal ranch, and nobody else would get to experience it. Some might say "oh well", but it would be a shame for that to happen, or for someone to open up a generic amusement park, or shopping mall, in a place of such natural beauty.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:33 pm to TheIndulger
quote:
No, although nothing would be stopping them, but a billionaire or a group of people could potentially buy a place like Yellowstone Park and decide they want it for their own personal ranch, and nobody else would get to experience it. Some might say "oh well", but it would be a shame for that to happen, or for someone to open up a generic amusement park, or shopping mall, in a place of such natural beauty.
Now if we could get people like you as wound up about what GOVERNMENT IS ACTUALLY DOING with our resources as they are about what private individuals might do in Make-Believe-Land, we'd be making progress.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 1:28 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
Libertarians tend to be the most original thinkers and are usually the smartest people in the room, imho. Which doesn't change the fact that they are imagining making sausage, rather than actually making sausage.
Libertarians are like the Khmer Rouge but on the opposite end of the spectrum. The result would be a killing fields like the Khmer Rouge. They should shoot and kill those who disagree with them and the economy would collapse because in practice their extremist policies would result in a collapse of society and wide scale famine and hunger and violence since they state would cease to exist. It's the 180 from the Kymer Rouge but with the same result. People die because Libertarians believe so much in their principles they would let people die and kill people who oppose them.
The Libertarians government would be in a compound heavily armed and let things happen because it's their philosophy and mount campaigns against those who are against them.
This post was edited on 11/16/14 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 11/16/14 at 1:29 pm to TheIndulger
quote:
No, although nothing would be stopping them, but a billionaire or a group of people could potentially buy a place like Yellowstone Park and decide they want it for their own personal ranch, and nobody else would get to experience it.
1. Yellowstone would go for more than a Billion. The real estate would probably fetch 100 Billion.
2. People who own land take care of it better than people who do not own land (the govt). See renters vis-a-vis home owners. If the richest Arab Sheik in the world bought Yellowstone he would increase it's upkeep.
3. The trend line toward acreage taken over by the US govt is alarming. Eventually, all land will be owned by the govt. But I'll be dead by then so I won't care.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News