• 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!

Can the Libertarian party or policies ever work?

Should/Can libertarianism work?

  • Yes of course but first we need to become more known.

    Votes: 18 31.6%
  • Yes but we will never get elected.

    Votes: 5 8.8%
  • No and I'm damn glad of it.

    Votes: 27 47.4%
  • No because we will never get well known/enough votes.

    Votes: 7 12.3%

  • Total voters
    57
What is it with you people? When discussing the internal politics of america, we somehow have to draw comparisons to the leanings of "the rest of the world"?

Give me a break. :)

Define far-left and then tell me if any district in the U.S. has a majority voting trend of "far-left"
 
Can you explain the difference between a Libertarian and a Libertarian Republican please?

A libertarian Republican is a Republican with a libertarian political view. Republicans are usually conservative, moderates, liberals (in rare cases), and libertarians. I believe Ron Paul is considered to be a libertarian Republican (I may be wrong, I don't really know how he describes himself).
 
A libertarian Republican is a Republican with a libertarian political view. Republicans are usually conservative, moderates, liberals (in rare cases), and libertarians. I believe Ron Paul is considered to be a libertarian Republican (I may be wrong, I don't really know how he describes himself).

I meant more issue wise. A republican tends to be tax cuts, deregulation, socially conservative, strong military. In what way is a Libertarian different? The last 2?
 
Define far-left and then tell me if any district in the U.S. has a majority voting trend of "far-left"

Far-left, by American standards ;) would be places like San Fransisco/ the Pacific NW. The NE/portions of great lakes go blue quite a bit but they are typically labor democrats. I wouldn't call them "far-left" by our standards.
 
I meant more issue wise. A republican tends to be tax cuts, deregulation, socially conservative, strong military. In what way is a Libertarian different? The last 2?

I would imagine that libertarian Republicans would be for more personal moral freedom. Not necessarily taking the stance of being socially liberal, but saying that the government shouldn't make laws for socially moral reasons. For example, I would imagine that they would support gay marriage, not necessarily because they believe homosexuality is acceptable and ok, but because the government should be limited to an extreme and not be allowed to define marriage as a union only between a man and woman. With the military, I would think that they would have more of an isolationist view, meaning not getting involved in other countries or starting wars. I think they would support a strong national defense, but would have a foreign policy view of not getting into anyone's business. I don't think they would be anti-military, but would be against a foreign policy where we go to war with regimes and for reasons other than sheer self defense. However these are just my opinions, I can't speak for every libertarian or libertarian Republican.
 
Far-left, by American standards ;) would be places like San Fransisco/ the Pacific NW. The NE/portions of great lakes go blue quite a bit but they are typically labor democrats. I wouldn't call them "far-left" by our standards.

So they are far left by american standards, but arent far left. lol :doh
 
So they are far left by american standards, but arent far left. lol :doh

What are left-right by global standards? Cultures and countries are too unique to have a global spectrum. In America we have left-right standards based off of American definitions of what makes the left and what makes the right. What is wrong with that?
 
Thanks digsbe. Any of you Libertarian types can add/amplify/correct that? Do we have any Libertarian Republicans here?
 
What are left-right by global standards? Cultures and countries are too unique to have a global spectrum. In America we have left-right standards based off of American definitions of what makes the left and what makes the right. What is wrong with that?

You are attempting to identify an established political universal in a particular case. Far-Left is a relative term, and i wouldnt classify anywhere in America falling under the category of "FAR"-left at all
 
So they are far left by american standards, but arent far left. lol :doh

For the purposes of this discussion, or any other involving US politics, they are.
 
For the purposes of this discussion, or any other involving US politics, they are.

they absolutely are not.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_left]Far left - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

How does this exist in america? Anyone?
 
Thanks digsbe. Any of you Libertarian types can add/amplify/correct that? Do we have any Libertarian Republicans here?

No problem, and I 2nd what you said. If any libertarians have a problem with what I described please correct me. I'm not libertarian myself so I can't really speak for all of them and say is definitely what a libertarian Republican would look/vote like.

they absolutely are not.

Far left - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How does this exist in america? Anyone?

Does it have to exist in America? To be opposite, can we say the far right doesn't exist in America either? With American politics we use American left-right spectrum. With UK politics you use a UK left-right spectrum. You can't fit spectrums to a global scale because global politics are just far too broad to do so. However, I do think you can say someone is liberal/conservative, but with this what is "liberal" and what is "conservative" is relative to each countries political system and cultural beliefs.
 
Last edited:
No, because they don't take human nature into account.

No, libertarianism, much like communism, only really works on paper, because it doesn't account for human nature.

How so? Can either of you explain to me what you mean by this?

To answer the OP - I consider myself a libertarian only because it would be the closest match to what I believe in politically. Of course, I am not on board with their lack of foreign policy.

I do have the strong belief in shrinking the federal governments role in our daily lives and giving more decision making capability to the states.. but would it work in this day and age? I have no idea. I DO know, that a lot of what is being practiced now isn't what I would call a well oiled machine. More like a bloated albatross.

I especially like the individualistic ideals outlined by the lp - gay marriage? Go ahead.. it's YOUR business, not mine. You want to do drugs? Go ahead... it doesn't affect me... etc....

I am very fiscally conservative and very socially liberal. Unfortunately, I don't see people adopting the actual LP as a serious party - until of course, people get tired of the same lying bull**** presented by the Reps and Dems. /shrug
 
Thats pretty far right :p

Friedman is basically an anarcho-capitalist

Far-right!? The Founding Fathers and Adam Smith are "far-right"?

And Friedman is hardly an anarcho-capitalist, as he fully supports the existence of a central bank which implements monetary policy via a FIAT currency. Hardly an anarcho-capitalist...
 
Far-right!? The Founding Fathers and Adam Smith are "far-right"?

And Friedman is hardly an anarcho-capitalist, as he fully supports the existence of a central bank which implements monetary policy via a FIAT currency. Hardly an anarcho-capitalist...

Well, Adam smith and friedman are definately far-right, just not libertarian i guess, more moderate when it comes to social authority. No, the founding fathers, for their time, were radical left, championing anti-monarchist and anti-establishment, pro-egalitarian and pro-democratic ideas(at least in terms of social policy). If feudalism and top-down economic models were the status quo, they were moving left into capitalism, but they are present day on the right because they are capitalists and not socialists.
 
Last edited:
What does that have to do with a discussion of American politics?

:usflag2:

Someone made a comment about libertarians not being able to win far-left districts. I said, there are no far-left districts, in the U.S. anyway
 
Well, Adam smith and friedman are definately far-right, just not libertarian i guess, more moderate when it comes to social authority. No, the founding fathers, for their time, were radical left, championing anti-monarchist and anti-establishment, pro-egalitarian and pro-democratic ideas

You can say they were "far-left" by your definition, but spectrums also change. I would say that the founding fathers were just fed up with a monarchy and wanted to start a democracy. It wasn't that they were anti-monarchy or anarchists because their goal wasn't to destroy the UK's monarchy. Their goal was to gain independence from the Brits and create a Democratic Republic.
 
For me, Haiti is the Libertarian ideal: a place where there are no building standards, no zoning policies, no government regulation of any sort. It is the true laissez faire society.

The greatest catastrophe in modern times, at least in terms of percentage of population killed, was the recent earthquake in Haiti. Even the Governor's mansion was so ill constructed that it collapsed.

Whereas Chile had a far more severe earthquake a few weeks later and the death toll it experienced in comparison to Haiti's was minuscule. The difference? Government regulation in the form of building codes, zoning codes, inspections, etc., etc.
 
Someone made a comment about libertarians not being able to win far-left districts. I said, there are no far-left districts, in the U.S. anyway

In terms of American politics, yes there are. A fair number in California for example. Since we are talking American internal politics, the political spectrum of the rest of the world is irrelevant.
 
You can say they were "far-left" by your definition, but spectrums also change. I would say that the founding fathers were just fed up with a monarchy and wanted to start a democracy. It wasn't that they were anti-monarchy or anarchists because their goal wasn't to destroy the UK's monarchy. Their goal was to gain independence from the Brits and create a Democratic Republic.

yea i agree. for their time they were "revolutionaries". And it is hard to classify change into different regime types as a political viewpoint( monarchy is not really on the spectrum anymore)
 
In terms of American politics, yes there are. A fair number in California for example. Since we are talking American internal politics, the political spectrum of the rest of the world is irrelevant.

And I'm saying: there are no "FAR"-left areas in the U.S. Look at the definition of far left, and not jut leftist or left-wing
 
Libertarianism is not anarcho-anything. Libertarianism is a minarchist philosophy, and does recognize a power of state to perform actions that fall in the cracks of market failures.

Libertarianism probably will not exist on a large level for one of the main reasons mentioned early on in the thread - eventually money, in a libertarian construct, will make its way into the hands of a random few who decide to elevate themselves above others, as is a right. The bottom will fall from mouth-breathers who prefer to live an oblivious life and suddenly find themselves unable to make a claim on a welfare state and have it heard in a compassionate way. Libertarianism, in and of itself, cannot interfere with private markets unless it is a clear violation of minarchist law or doesn't prosper on the boundaries of fair trade. It's abhorrent to hear someone who claims they are libertarian to attack corporations because "they're too big". They get big for a reason. If you don't like the way MicroSoft or Wal-Mart runs a business, don't give them your dollars.

When a populace stops believing everything is a right and is willing to be rewarded in proportion to their skills and personal capital, you will see a libertarian state. Until then, don't hold your breath.
 
Well, Adam smith and friedman are definately far-right, just not libertarian i guess, more moderate when it comes to social authority.

Dude, "far-right" in comparison to what!? Hippy communists at Berkley and European socialists? This is the United States of America, Jack. Adam Smith and Friedman are free-market capitalists. Nothing "far-right" about that.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to retract your earlier assertion about Friedman being "basically an anarcho-capitalist". He's not even close to being an anarcho-capitalist. Retract your false accusation.

No, the founding fathers, for their time, were radical left, championing anti-monarchist and anti-establishment, pro-egalitarian and pro-democratic ideas.

Radical left!? They were adamant supporters of the free-market. The Founders cannot be viewed through the classic left/right dichotomy anyway. They were economically conservative and socially liberal. They weren't "far-left" or "far-right".
 
Libertarianism is not anarcho-anything. Libertarianism is a minarchist philosophy, and does recognize a power of state to perform actions that fall in the cracks of market failures.

Libertarianism probably will not exist on a large level for one of the main reasons mentioned early on in the thread - eventually money, in a libertarian construct, will make its way into the hands of a random few who decide to elevate themselves above others, as is a right. The bottom will fall from mouth-breathers who prefer to live an oblivious life and suddenly find themselves unable to make a claim on a welfare state and have it heard in a compassionate way. Libertarianism, in and of itself, cannot interfere with private markets unless it is a clear violation of minarchist law or doesn't prosper on the boundaries of fair trade. It's abhorrent to hear someone who claims they are libertarian to attack corporations because "they're too big". They get big for a reason. If you don't like the way MicroSoft or Wal-Mart runs a business, don't give them your dollars.

When a populace stops believing everything is a right and is willing to be rewarded in proportion to their skills and personal capital, you will see a libertarian state. Until then, don't hold your breath.

Libertarianism is to anarchism, as Authoritarianism is to totalitarianism. Just lighter flavors. As you move more and more libertarian, you move closer and closer to anarchy. Same with authoritarian principles, after a while you are a police state.
 
Back
Top Bottom