• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Question for Libertarians

Is the Libertarian Party a close relative of the GOP in ideology?

  • I'm a Libertarian and the Libertarian Partyand like the GOP is part of conservatism.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm a Libertarian and there is no commonality between the Liberarian and Republican parties

    Votes: 6 46.2%
  • I'm a Republican and see the Libertairan Party as somewhat similar to the GOP

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • I'm a Republican and the Liberarian Party and the GOP are like night and day

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • I'm a Democrat and see the Libertarian Party as somewhat similar to the GOP

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • I'm a Democrat and see the Libertarian Party as very different than the GOP

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • Total voters
    13
On a relative scale, maybe. On the absolute scale, we tend to have little in a real commonality with the Republocrats.
Yes, I would agree with that. You can try to compare them issue vs. issue, but that distracts from the underlying philosophical differences.

However, the purpose of my post was not to so much to try to line up libertarians with Republicans, but to challenge the idea that Democrats are like libertarians on social issues. A "social liberal" is a very, very different animal.
 
Minarchism



Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions. Such states are generally called night-watchman states.

Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly of force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez-faire approach to the economy is most likely to lead to economic prosperity.

I consider it a public service to educate the populace about the meaning of this word. I use it often in my posts (as I did in the post just above this one).

It's important for people to know that libertarianism is not anarchism, and that state minimalism can exist without corrupt posses in the streets determining who lives and who dies by the size of their price tags.
 
I agree with GuyIncognito, those are not social issues. If you could be educated, collect welfare, or health care without the help of the state, that would be a social/civil rights issue. Because they are directly funded by the state they are economic issues.
This just doesn't make any sense, sorry. The primary role the government play in civil rights is to protect them. Of course, protection - like every other function of the government - costs money, so to follow your logic to its end, there really is no such thing as a social issue, they are all economic issues.
 
Am I'm mistaken or is the Libertarian Party in the same conservative family as the Republican Party?

When it comes to economics, they are generally in the same family (although some Republicans are protectionists). Social issues and foreign policy issues they are almost opposites.

Keep in mind, not all (l)ibertarians are supporters of the LP. Also, libertarianism has Left Wing roots, though it became associated with the Right later in the 20th century.
 
Be sure to also check the "I form my opinions based on hyperbole, intellectually dishonest analogy, hysteria, and propaganda" box as well.

Sure because someone who calls themselves a libertarian are as honest as a progressive who supports Obama :roll:
 
This just doesn't make any sense, sorry. The primary role the government play in civil rights is to protect them. Of course, protection - like every other function of the government - costs money, so to follow your logic to its end, there really is no such thing as a social issue, they are all economic issues.

The things you mentioned require the state giving out money, and they're NOT civil rights. Welfare is not a civil right, or even a human right for that matter. It's an extra goodie service. Libertarians are as socially open as they come, even more than democrats. Even democrats want to control what people put in their body.
 
The modern GOP is nothing like the Libertarians, in fact, they're closer to the Democrats than anything else.
 
Government services are not a civil right. They must be paid for somehow, and the how must be discussed, therefore they are an economic issue.
Either government services are a civil right, or there is no legitimate reason for government in the first place.
 
Sure because someone who calls themselves a libertarian are as honest as a progressive who supports Obama :roll:

Nothing of the sort. It's just to mark that your opinions as stated seem to have little to do with reality and more your perception of libertarianism is based more on hysteria and emotion than logical and sound argument.
 
Either government services are a civil right, or there is no legitimate reason for government in the first place.

There is grey area between the two. They are by no means "rights", but they are privileges that can be entrusted to people through minimal taxation and charitable sources.

Libertarianism doesn't try to do away with the free rider system. It just tries to keep it at minimal and acceptable levels.
 
Either government services are a civil right, or there is no legitimate reason for government in the first place.

So you're trying to claim that ALL government services are a CIVIL RIGHT?

So the dog-crap bags the city fills up at the park are a civil right? Seriously?
 
The things you mentioned require the state giving out money, and they're NOT civil rights. Welfare is not a civil right, or even a human right for that matter. It's an extra goodie service. Libertarians are as socially open as they come, even more than democrats. Even democrats want to control what people put in their body.
I fail to see why you want to recognize any sort of social issue whatsoever. Rights only become an "issue" when they're being impinged upon - any role Government plays is going to cost money and therefore is not a social issue but an economic issue in your eyes.
 
I fail to see why you want to recognize any sort of social issue whatsoever. Rights only become an "issue" when they're being impinged upon - any role Government plays is going to cost money and therefore is not a social issue but an economic issue in your eyes.

And the problem is the same thing I've said for years - that the overwhelming majority of Americans have no idea what the differences are between "rights" and "privileges".
 
I fail to see why you want to recognize any sort of social issue whatsoever. Rights only become an "issue" when they're being impinged upon - any role Government plays is going to cost money and therefore is not a social issue but an economic issue in your eyes.

No, because in civil rights cases you are being defended from something, IE: someone is trying to lock you in their basement. Economics issues cover goodies that are handed to you by the government. It's completely different.

Are you saying if the government were handing out gift baskets with IPads and beer inside it would be a civil rights issue and not an economics issue? You wouldn't think: "Man, our country is so well off we can afford extravagant gift-baskets?"
 
Personally, I'm insulted when someone says libertarians are socially liberal. They don't mean socially liberal in the classical sense, but in the modern sense and I have just about nothing in common with modern liberals. They approach every topic from a different angle than I do and with different goals to reach. They view rights as a gift from the state and liberty as simply permitted. I'm the exact opposite on both positions and so when I find myself agreeing with them on a general idea, lets say gay marriage, the ends are different and the reasons they have for their position are usually things I reject. The basis for their position is regularly equality, but I view the idea we shape policy around equality outside of liberty as idiotic and dangerous. My view is simply liberty and the right of all people to marry who they please. I have no use for equality arguments built on marriage benefits or some hair brain idea of approval by the state. Liberty offers equality and so further attempts past that point are baseless, unwarranted and almost always violating the liberty of someone else to obtain. I have no use for modern liberals. Their ideas of social freedom almost always involves coercion or direct involvement by the state in our lives. My idea is fairly simply really. Allow the liberty and call it done. We don't need modern liberal ideas of equality to muddy the waters.

Liberals as we know them today are not for freedom and when they talk of it you can always be assured that government is going to play a part in whatever plan they have towards it. That is not freedom, it's government control of freedom.
 
Last edited:
There is grey area between the two. They are by no means "rights", but they are privileges that can be entrusted to people through minimal taxation and charitable sources.
If there is any legitimate reason for Government, it's to enforce the rule of law. Do you agree? The court is a government service. If you are not entitled to that service - if you and every other citizen do not have a right to a trial - I see no legitimate purpose for the government.
 
And the problem is the same thing I've said for years - that the overwhelming majority of Americans have no idea what the differences are between "rights" and "privileges".
The right to a fair trial is not a privilege.
 
Personally, I'm insulted when someone says libertarians are socially liberal. They don't mean socially liberal in the classical sense, but in the modern sense and I have just about nothing in common with modern liberals. They approach every topic from a different angle than I do and with different goals to reach. They view rights as a gift from the state and liberty as simply permitted. I'm the exact opposite on both positions and so when I find myself agreeing with them on a general idea, lets say gay marriage, the ends are different and the reasons they have for the position are usually things I reject. The basis for their position is regularly equality, but I view the idea we shape policy around equality outside of liberty as idiotic and dangerous. My view is simply liberty and the right of all people to marry who they please. I have no use for equality arguments built on marriage benefits or some hair brain idea of approval by the state. Liberty offers equality and so further attempts past that point are baseless, unwarranted and almost always violating the liberty of someone else to obtain. I have no use for modern liberals. Their ideas of social freedom almost always involves coercion or direct involvement by the state in our lives. My idea is fairly simply really. Allow the liberty and call it done. We don't need modern liberal ideas of equality to muddy the waters.

Liberals as we know them today are not for freedom and when they talk of it you can always be assured that government is going to play a part in whatever plan they have towards it. That is not freedom, it's government control of freedom.

Many libertarians may disagree with how we distribute privileges, and I personally don't view any marriage as a "right", but I think most of us will say that it is oppressive to deny marriage to people based on genetic factors (race, sex, orientation, etc.). It is not a violation of heterosexual liberty to allow for same-sex marriage because there is no damage caused to the institution of heterosexual marriage. Do you think today's libertarians would support blacks or women being unable to vote, as was the law in the past?

All marriage is government intrusion, so you can't play that card when it comes to same-sex marriage without it also being applicable to heterosexual marriage.
 
The basis for their position is regularly equality, but I view the idea we shape policy around equality outside of liberty as idiotic and dangerous. My view is simply liberty and the right of all people to marry who they please. I have no use for equality arguments built on marriage benefits or some hair brain idea of approval by the state.
Yes, exactly. Social liberals promote such things as affirmative action - believing government intervention necessary in order to provide an equal opportunity for success (or necessary so that "all folks can have a fair shake" as Obama puts it). Libertarians are NOT social liberals.
 
If there is any legitimate reason for Government, it's to enforce the rule of law. Do you agree? The court is a government service. If you are not entitled to that service - if you and every other citizen do not have a right to a trial - I see no legitimate purpose for the government.

No, I don't view law enforcement as a reason for government. I think the basis of government is to promote general (and limited) welfare, defend the peace, and to uphold liberties. Law enforcement should be held at local/state levels. Federal enforcement of existing laws should be very small, very thin, and very judicious.

The right to a fair trial is not a privilege.

I've never railed against fair trial. What I do not call a right, as opposed to a privilege, is any allotment of taxpayer funds.
 
Many libertarians may disagree with how we distribute privileges, and I personally don't view any marriage as a "right", but I think most of us will say that it is oppressive to deny marriage to people based on genetic factors (race, sex, orientation, etc.). It is not a violation of heterosexual liberty to allow for same-sex marriage because there is no damage caused to the institution of heterosexual marriage. Do you think today's libertarians would support blacks or women being unable to vote, as was the law in the past?

The right to marriage is just a natural extension of the right to liberty. We don't have a right to have government oversee our marriage or provide us with benefits, but we all have the right to marry who we please regardless of race, sex, orientation, etc. When I referred to liberals violating the liberty of people towards equality I was more looking towards other actions liberals have taken.

All marriage is government intrusion, so you can't play that card when it comes to same-sex marriage without it also being applicable to heterosexual marriage.

Yes, it is. That is why my position doesn't include the government and yet just another reason I don't agree with liberal social policy. I'm not socially liberal and it's insulting that people keep saying that I am.
 
The right to marriage is just a natural extension of the right to liberty. We don't have a right to have government oversee our marriage or provide us with benefits, but we all have the right to marry who we please regardless of race, sex, orientation, etc. When I referred to liberals violating the liberty of people towards equality I was more looking towards other actions liberals have taken.



Yes, it is. That is why my position doesn't include the government and yet just another reason I don't agree with liberal social policy. I'm not socially liberal and it's insulting that people keep saying that I am.

There are 2 reasons men get married: tax benefits, and she won't shut the hell up about it. Neither involve rights or liberties.
 
On a different thread someone suggested Libertarians should not be lumped together with conservatives. I agree Libertarians are not exactly Republicans but I do tend to think of Libertarians as the half-brothers of Republicans. Congressman Ron Paul and twice Presidential candidate is a Libertarian and according the Wikipedia is a "Lifetime Member" but joined "the next best thing" due to electability issues not being affiliated with a major party. The Libertarian candidate for POTUS, Congressman Bob Barr was a lifelong Republican but ran for President as a Libertarian I assume because they represented his conservative ideology even more than the GOP.

Am I'm mistaken or is the Libertarian Party in the same conservative family as the Republican Party?

Sorry for inadvertently omitting Independents from the poll.
You are mistaken in my view.

Both democrats and republicans have too many authoritarian ideas. Libertarians tend to be left or right on issues, depending on what they are, and seldom in unison. I am generally more right than left, but I think the best way to look at the libertarian idea, is to think of opposing all but basic authority needed for society.
 
There are 2 reasons men get married: tax benefits, and she won't shut the hell up about it. Neither involve rights or liberties.

I'm guessing they never think of the downside of shared property either.

People generally don't do anything for the reason of "I have the right to do this". Why would it be different for marriage?
 
Back
Top Bottom