• 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!

What is a libertarian, anyway?

KevinKohler said:
I think I agree somewhat with you with it being a directional thing.


The problem is, it's also a political party.
Click to expand...
political party, with both p's lower case......
Not many of them get elected, and they are unlikely to be effective from the outside of the political system.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It is not very different from what the leaders of the two major parties say that they support. It is more of a combination of the liberal view of individual rights and the conservative view of limited government.

Democrats say they're for marriage rights, for example, Republicans for gun rights. Why can't someone be for both rights?

As for health care, anyone should be able to see that the cost of health care is strangling the economy and holding it back more surely than onerous taxation ever could. We can also see that other nations have far less expensive systems than we do. Moreover, many individuals keep working at jobs they hate instead of striking out on their own because they have to have the company health plan. Therefore, addressing the issue of health care for everyone is also an issue of freedom.
Click to expand...

Regarding gun rights (leaving aside the constitutional constraints), the issue is both practical and prudential. If access to guns leads to more violence, or the kind of violence that is particularly destructive of social bonds (i.e., gun mass murders), then we should limit or eliminate gun rights. You, as a libertarian, would presumably say that you don't care about the consequences of gun ownership -- even if it is destructive -- because your ideology has determined that people have the right to own guns. I find that irrational and extreme. Now I understand there is a genuine issue about the facts, but like I say, even assuming the facts were as I think they are, my understanding is that libertarians would care: the "right" to own a gun outweighs all other considerations.

As to health care, I suspect, again, that the vast majority of self-identified libertarians are against universal health care even if it were absolutely demonstrated that it is more effective and less expensive than the dysfunctional private system we have. So again, even if you're personally being rational and you see the issue in practical terms, I sense a resistance to facts and actual social consequences by libertarianism which I find appallingly irrational.

I'm not appealing to the No-True-Scotsman fallacy, but are you sure your position really represents current libertarianism, or rather just good public policy informed by some basically sound values about the limits of government? Because I don't see your kind of rational analysis coming from most self-described libertarians, even those on the national scene.
 
Last edited:
FaceofBachmann said:
Regarding gun rights (leaving aside the constitutional constraints), the issue is both practical and prudential. If access to guns leads to more violence, or the kind of violence that is particularly destructive of social bonds (i.e., gun mass murders), then we should limit or eliminate gun rights. You, as a libertarian, would presumably say that you don't care about the consequences of gun ownership -- even if it is destructive -- because your ideology has determined that people have the right to own guns. I find that irrational and extreme. Now I understand there is a genuine issue about the facts, but like I say, even assuming the facts were as I think they are, my understanding is that libertarians would care: the "right" to own a gun outweighs all other considerations.
Click to expand...

It is the Bill of Rights that has determined that we have the right to own guns, not me or any sort of philosophy. Moreover, whether gun ownership is or is not destructive has never been proven, but it is proven that the gang bangers and assorted low lifes that infest our society don't care about gun laws. The corollary to that is the decent citizens have a right to defend ourselves.

FaceofBachmann said:
As to health care, I suspect, again, that the vast majority of self-identified libertarians are against universal health care even if it were absolutely demonstrated that it is more effective and less expensive than the dysfunctional private system we have. So again, even if you're personally being rational and you see the issue in practical terms, I sense a resistance to facts and actual social consequences by libertarianism which I find appallingly irrational.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you're right about that.

Having a limited government is not going to do much good if all of the money that once went to support it now goes to support health care instead. But, yes, that's a practical position rather than an ideological one.

FaceofBachmann said:
I'm not appealing to the No-True-Scotsman fallacy, but are you sure your position really represents current libertarianism, or rather just good public policy informed by some basically sound values about the limits of government? Because I don't see your kind of rational analysis coming from most self-described libertarians, even those on the national scene.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure my position on UHC reflects sound values and not ideology.

Actually, what I think we should do is institute universal catastrophic coverage for everyone, eliminate all other forms of government sponsored health care except for the VA for combat veterans of course, let the individual pay for our own doctors visits but pay in common for expensive treatment that the individual can't be expected to be able to afford. Such a system would eliminate the need for health insurance, and would bring down the costs of health care dramatically.

Of course, it's just a pipe dream, as the insurance industry would never allow such a system to be put in place anyway.
 
FaceofBachmann said:
If access to guns leads to more violence, or the kind of violence that is particularly destructive of social bonds (i.e., gun mass murders), then we should limit or eliminate gun rights.
Click to expand...

And you just put your finger on the main difference betweem liberalism and all the other political ideologies. They don't care about how an idea works out. They just want ideological consistency, regardless of the consequences.

Sure, sometimes they'll dress their ideas up and argue that they will lead to better consequences, but even if you could scientifically prove that they won't, they will stick to them all the same
 
FaceofBachmann said:
Regarding gun rights (leaving aside the constitutional constraints), the issue is both practical and prudential. If access to guns leads to more violence, or the kind of violence that is particularly destructive of social bonds (i.e., gun mass murders), then we should limit or eliminate gun rights. You, as a libertarian, would presumably say that you don't care about the consequences of gun ownership -- even if it is destructive -- because your ideology has determined that people have the right to own guns. I find that irrational and extreme. Now I understand there is a genuine issue about the facts, but like I say, even assuming the facts were as I think they are, my understanding is that libertarians would care: the "right" to own a gun outweighs all other considerations.

As to health care, I suspect, again, that the vast majority of self-identified libertarians are against universal health care even if it were absolutely demonstrated that it is more effective and less expensive than the dysfunctional private system we have. So again, even if you're personally being rational and you see the issue in practical terms, I sense a resistance to facts and actual social consequences by libertarianism which I find appallingly irrational.

I'm not appealing to the No-True-Scotsman fallacy, but are you sure your position really represents current libertarianism, or rather just good public policy informed by some basically sound values about the limits of government? Because I don't see your kind of rational analysis coming from most self-described libertarians, even those on the national scene.
Click to expand...

Molon labe: you try to eliminate gun rights you will cause a civil war and people like you will be part of it-
 
FaceofBachmann said:
Regarding gun rights (leaving aside the constitutional constraints), the issue is both practical and prudential. If access to guns leads to more violence, or the kind of violence that is particularly destructive of social bonds (i.e., gun mass murders), then we should limit or eliminate gun rights. You, as a libertarian, would presumably say that you don't care about the consequences of gun ownership -- even if it is destructive -- because your ideology has determined that people have the right to own guns. I find that irrational and extreme. Now I understand there is a genuine issue about the facts, but like I say, even assuming the facts were as I think they are, my understanding is that libertarians would care: the "right" to own a gun outweighs all other considerations.

As to health care, I suspect, again, that the vast majority of self-identified libertarians are against universal health care even if it were absolutely demonstrated that it is more effective and less expensive than the dysfunctional private system we have. So again, even if you're personally being rational and you see the issue in practical terms, I sense a resistance to facts and actual social consequences by libertarianism which I find appallingly irrational.

I'm not appealing to the No-True-Scotsman fallacy, but are you sure your position really represents current libertarianism, or rather just good public policy informed by some basically sound values about the limits of government? Because I don't see your kind of rational analysis coming from most self-described libertarians, even those on the national scene.
Click to expand...

there are millions...millions of Americans, who say abortion is destructive..........shall you and others on the left call for the right to pricy on abortion to end?
 
ernst barkmann said:
there are millions...millions of Americans, who say abortion is destructive..........shall you and others on the left call for the right to pricy on abortion to end?
Click to expand...

Why are you asking me? I'm not a libertarian. I can think a lots of reasons to allow abortions that have nothing to do with right to privacy.
 
sangha said:
And you just put your finger on the main difference betweem liberalism and all the other political ideologies. They don't care about how an idea works out. They just want ideological consistency, regardless of the consequences.

Sure, sometimes they'll dress their ideas up and argue that they will lead to better consequences, but even if you could scientifically prove that they won't, they will stick to them all the same
Click to expand...

Yep, it's ideology versus people.

The Right uses ideas to war against people (mostly working people). Liberalism promotes empowering people to let them make political decisions that they deem are in their best interest. Ides should be in the service of self-determination and community action, not fetishes like gun rights.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It is the Bill of Rights that has determined that we have the right to own guns, not me or any sort of philosophy.
Click to expand...

That's why I said let's put aside the constitutional constraints and discuss the issue on its own terms to elucidate the values of libertarianism. We all agree we're stuck, for now, with the SC's bizarre interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. But the issue is, what if we weren't? What would libertarians propose?

Moreover, whether gun ownership is or is not destructive has never been proven, but it is proven that the gang bangers and assorted low lifes that infest our society don't care about gun laws. The corollary to that is the decent citizens have a right to defend ourselves.
Click to expand...

Of course is hasn't been proven. The issue is, if it were, what would your position as a libertarian be? I sense you'd still say that guns take precedence over public safety and the desire of people not to have to deal with armed men at Starbucks pretending they're tough guys. If so, that's irrational and suggests libertarianism is extremist.

I'm pretty sure you're right about that.

Having a limited government is not going to do much good if all of the money that once went to support it now goes to support health care instead. But, yes, that's a practical position rather than an ideological one.



I'm pretty sure my position on UHC reflects sound values and not ideology.

Actually, what I think we should do is institute universal catastrophic coverage for everyone, eliminate all other forms of government sponsored health care except for the VA for combat veterans of course, let the individual pay for our own doctors visits but pay in common for expensive treatment that the individual can't be expected to be able to afford. Such a system would eliminate the need for health insurance, and would bring down the costs of health care dramatically.

Of course, it's just a pipe dream, as the insurance industry would never allow such a system to be put in place anyway.
Click to expand...

A decent proposal (with some flaws), which I could (reluctantly) support -- but I suspect much further than many libertarians would say we should go. Again, you seem to be in the mainstream much more than most forms of libertarianism.
 
FaceofBachmann said:
As to health care, I suspect, again, that the vast majority of self-identified libertarians are against universal health care even if it were absolutely demonstrated that it is more effective and less expensive than the dysfunctional private system we have. So again, even if you're personally being rational and you see the issue in practical terms, I sense a resistance to facts and actual social consequences by libertarianism which I find appallingly irrational.

I'm not appealing to the No-True-Scotsman fallacy, but are you sure your position really represents current libertarianism, or rather just good public policy informed by some basically sound values about the limits of government? Because I don't see your kind of rational analysis coming from most self-described libertarians, even those on the national scene.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that the vast majority of self-described "libertarians" are just embarassed far-right Republicans/conservatives, not really libertarians in the legitimate and historical sense.
 
FaceofBachmann said:
Yep, it's ideology versus people.

The Right uses ideas to war against people (mostly working people). Liberalism promotes empowering people to let them make political decisions that they deem are in their best interest. Ides should be in the service of self-determination and community action, not fetishes like gun rights.
Click to expand...


sane people pretty well reject as psychobabble posts that claim gun rights are a fetish
 
DocileLion said:
Bear in mind that the vast majority of self-described "libertarians" are just embarassed far-right Republicans/conservatives, not really libertarians in the legitimate and historical sense.
Click to expand...

you mean they reject the european self contradictory version of libertarian-those who pretend to want freedom only after Government coercion has redistributed income?

or those "libertarians" who whine about corporations having too much power so their solution is to give government more and more power?
 
DocileLion said:
Bear in mind that the vast majority of self-described "libertarians" are just embarassed far-right Republicans/conservatives, not really libertarians in the legitimate and historical sense.
Click to expand...

Point taken. But this begs the question of who the "real" libertarians are. The disgruntled GOP survivalists types have you outnumbered and have stolen the label.
 
FaceofBachmann said:
Point taken. But this begs the question of who the "real" libertarians are. The disgruntled GOP survivalists types have you outnumbered and have stolen the label.
Click to expand...

that is because reactionary parasitic statists have stolen the term "liberal" from those of us who trace our roots back to Locke and Rousseau
 
FaceofBachmann said:
Point taken. But this begs the question of who the "real" libertarians are. The disgruntled GOP survivalists types have you outnumbered and have stolen the label.
Click to expand...

I'll readily admit that I am not in the circles of libertarians, nor have I incredibly researched them. There is quite a bit of truth to the whole "No True Scotsman" thing. Ideas are somewhat fluid as are the labels. There's not much "there" there to the idea that you can be a true anything. People try to be purists, but they are trapped in their own experiences, geography, and time. As a result, libertarianism, like any other grouping, will have a great many varieties. I would settle for trying to group together segments of libertarianism, even still knowing that people don't fit into boxes (or at least, don't like being put in them).
 
FaceofBachmann said:
That's why I said let's put aside the constitutional constraints and discuss the issue on its own terms to elucidate the values of libertarianism. We all agree we're stuck, for now, with the SC's bizarre interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. But the issue is, what if we weren't? What would libertarians propose?



Of course is hasn't been proven. The issue is, if it were, what would your position as a libertarian be? I sense you'd still say that guns take precedence over public safety and the desire of people not to have to deal with armed men at Starbucks pretending they're tough guys. If so, that's irrational and suggests libertarianism is extremist.
Click to expand...

My position is that the government is there to protect our rights. Since some people's rights overlap others, then there has to be an arbiter of whose rights prevail in a given situation. In the example of gun control, I really think the SC has it right, even though their decision could be interpreted in a lot of ways. The fact of the matter is, we can't have unlimited rights to bear arms of all sorts. Unusual and dangerous arms, in the words of the SC, have to be outlawed.

When the Second Amendment was penned, after all, "arms" meant flintlock rifles, swords, and cannons and not RPGs and missiles.

As for guys acting "tough" in Starbucks, that is a local decision.

FaceofBachmann said:
A decent proposal (with some flaws), which I could (reluctantly) support -- but I suspect much further than many libertarians would say we should go. Again, you seem to be in the mainstream much more than most forms of libertarianism.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think you're right about that one, too.
 
Dittohead not! said:
My position is that the government is there to protect our rights. Since some people's rights overlap others, then there has to be an arbiter of whose rights prevail in a given situation. In the example of gun control, I really think the SC has it right, even though their decision could be interpreted in a lot of ways. The fact of the matter is, we can't have unlimited rights to bear arms of all sorts. Unusual and dangerous arms, in the words of the SC, have to be outlawed.

When the Second Amendment was penned, after all, "arms" meant flintlock rifles, swords, and cannons and not RPGs and missiles.

As for guys acting "tough" in Starbucks, that is a local decision.



Yes, I think you're right about that one, too.
Click to expand...

For whatever it's worth, we're just not too far off on policy issues (I don't really have strong feeling about gun control, I just find the people who worship guns to be for the most part insecure appalling cowards).

So I'm not sure what that means except incremental reforms are possible among rational people.
 
Fiddytree said:
I'll readily admit that I am not in the circles of libertarians, nor have I incredibly researched them. There is quite a bit of truth to the whole "No True Scotsman" thing. Ideas are somewhat fluid as are the labels. There's not much "there" there to the idea that you can be a true anything. People try to be purists, but they are trapped in their own experiences, geography, and time. As a result, libertarianism, like any other grouping, will have a great many varieties. I would settle for trying to group together segments of libertarianism, even still knowing that people don't fit into boxes (or at least, don't like being put in them).
Click to expand...

My concern is that libertarian theory, however it is characterized and whatever spectrum is used, doesn't seem up to the task of dealing with modern complex societies. Indeed, I think much of the libertarian impulse is fear of complexity and modernity. I think that's a dead end.

Nostrums about limited government, protecting individual rights, local control, etc. -- they all sound wonderful in the abstract. I'm just not convinced they are functional in a modern complex economy that is dominated by capital when it comes down to making policy choices.

The obvious example of rejecting universal health care on the grounds of limited government appears totally dysfunctional to me, given how the modern health care industry actually works
 
Fiddytree said:
I'll readily admit that I am not in the circles of libertarians, nor have I incredibly researched them. There is quite a bit of truth to the whole "No True Scotsman" thing. Ideas are somewhat fluid as are the labels. There's not much "there" there to the idea that you can be a true anything. People try to be purists, but they are trapped in their own experiences, geography, and time. As a result, libertarianism, like any other grouping, will have a great many varieties. I would settle for trying to group together segments of libertarianism, even still knowing that people don't fit into boxes (or at least, don't like being put in them).
Click to expand...

What happens then, however, is that the same people that accuse libertarians of being "purists" then criticize you for "making up philosophies". Libertarians have been criticized for being too "purist"/"ideologically extreme" while at the same time criticized for defining libertarianism too broadly.
 
FaceofBachmann said:
My concern is that libertarian theory, however it is characterized and whatever spectrum is used, doesn't seem up to the task of dealing with modern complex societies.
Click to expand...

It's not up to the task of dealing with primitively simple societies either, which explains why they have also rejected libertarianism
 
TeleKat said:
What happens then, however, is that the same people that accuse libertarians of being "purists" then criticize you for "making up philosophies". Libertarians have been criticized for being too "purist"/"ideologically extreme" while at the same time criticized for defining libertarianism too broadly.
Click to expand...

I critique libertarians for promoting political practice which is too inflexible for the existing status-quo while often having some romanticized vision of what the past was, and much like "small government conservatives", too interested in securing what they see as purity in their ranks. That doesn't prevent differences from coming forth, however. Marxist socialists had different camps, but throughout the generations, they had quelled their relative small strength by considering their main activity should be engaging in discussions and relying on the standard accusations of being sell-outs, and so forth. Each group had their own idea for what the Revolution was supposed to be, but they did not embrace the idea that the other group should be an equal partner, nor did they necessarily consider it desirable to be active members of the existing political structure (often because it was "beneath them" or a victory to the ruling class).
 
Last edited:
FaceofBachmann said:
Why are you asking me? I'm not a libertarian. I can think a lots of reasons to allow abortions that have nothing to do with right to privacy.
Click to expand...

because you said this:

FaceofBachmann said:
Regarding gun rights (leaving aside the constitutional constraints), the issue is both practical and prudential. If access to guns leads to more violence, or the kind of violence that is particularly destructive of social bonds (i.e., gun mass murders), then we should limit or eliminate gun rights.
Click to expand...

abortion is based on the right of privacy, by he USSC.

since millions of people think it is destruction to our society, ......should we limit or eliminate it also?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom