Myths and Truths about Libertarianism

[BucEyedPea]

"Libertarianism is the fastest growing political creed in America today. Before judging and evaluating libertarianism, it is vitally important to find out precisely what that doctrine is, and, more particularly, what it is not. It is especially important to clear up a number of misconceptions about libertarianism that are held by most people, and particularly by conservatives. In this essay I shall enumerate and critically analyze the most common myths that are held about libertarianism. When these are cleared away, people will then be able to discuss libertarianism free of egregious myths and misconceptions, and to deal with it as it should be on its very own merits or demerits." ~ Murray N. Rothbard. a founder of modern libertarianism


Just for starters

[siberian khatru]

Old joke: When two libertarians find themselves agreeing on something, each knows the other has sold out.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I draw the line at only those things that are necessary for our society to function. That means that I'm not always going to get what I want. I am always going to think that the government is too intrusive, and I'm always going to think that the law is too overbearing.

Well, that wouldn't be their line. No one agrees on that line. Libertarians believe in courts for enforcing contracts, govt prosecuting fraud and protection of life. I know at least that. Some will support civil rights and could still be considered libertarian enough, but some don't. Some are pro-life; some pro-choice and I think either of those can fit into the tent because that comes down to whether or not you believe it's another human life/person who has a right to be free from being harmed in an act of aggression.

Oh, and one does not have to believe in Austrian Economics either. There are conservatives that do. In fact I was turned onto it by a man from the religious right. But it fits into that ideology well enough.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Except that's where libertarians draw the line. The aggression doctrine is the fundamental basis that unites all types of libertarians. Since the state is aggressive force, because it relies on a gun to a person's head to comply or go to jail, they want as little as possible. So they feel that if they're not harming someone else directly, then there should be no govt interference. It wouldn't be based on if it's enjoyable for other people.

Yeah, they are the judge on whether it is harming someone else. You may not have noticed this (especially you), but a lot of people are self-absorbed jerks. They don't realize their impacts on others. And if they do, they often don't care. That's why libertarianism always sounds good, but is impractical because people are...people.

[CrazyPhuD]

#1 Myth about libertarianism is that is has been defined.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Beck is continously mocked for calling himself a libertarian by the Rothbardians. He's a joke to them.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

#1 Myth about libertarianism is that is has been defined.

No that's not a myth. It can be defined but it has different kinds. It's a big tent. It has to be if you believe in a mini-anarchy. ( another word for it ). Because it allows for the development of communities who band together based on what their own values. They're united by the non-aggression doctrine and it is a thought out philosophy.


For instance there is left-libertarianism....which is mini-anarchy which is essentially a communitarian idea. Much like communism.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Well, that wouldn't be their line. No one agrees on that line. Libertarians believe in courts for enforcing contracts, govt prosecuting fraud and protection of life. Some will support civil rights and could still be considered libertarian enough, but some don't. Some are pro-life; some pro-choice and I think either of those can fit into the tent because that comes down to whether or not you believe it's another human life/person who has a right to be free from being harmed in an act of aggression.

Necessary for a society to function. Our society functions when every citizen believes in a set of fair laws that are enforced with equality. Civil rights are a pretty easy call for me: Always fall on the side of the line that favors the individual. And to quote the Libertarian Party platform of 2012:

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
http://www.lp.org/platform

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Necessary for a society to function. Our society functions when every citizen believes in a set of fair laws that are enforced with equality. Civil rights are a pretty easy call for me: Always fall on the side of the line that favors the individual. And to quote the Libertarian Party platform of 2012:

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
http://www.lp.org/platform

That depends on if you think it's an act of aggression because there are many that don't support that part of the platform. That's just a platform for the "party." Many Rothbardians left the official libertarian party. Libertariania heavily favors the individual, true, but that applies to the person in the womb too. Because it's the non-aggression doctrine that unites all the different kinds.

I can accept someone thinking they're still a libertarian, even if they support civil rights, but I don't think that stand on it's own is libertarian. It's a break. I think if the person is libertarian on 95% they still are. From there, it would be declining away from it.

However, I think civil rights, breaks with it because it forces other individuals such as private business owners to do something or be punished by the state. Now, if it's the state doing it, such as public buses then I would agree it's liberatarian to oppose such limits on any person.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Yeah, they are the judge on whether it is harming someone else. You may not have noticed this (especially you), but a lot of people are self-absorbed jerks. They don't realize their impacts on others. And if they do, they often don't care. That's why libertarianism always sounds good, but is impractical because people are...people.

Well, that's why you do end up with a set of laws to protect individuals.

[La literatura]

Get a job.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That depends on if you think it's an act of aggression because there are many that don't support that part of the platform. That's just a platform for the "party." Many Rothbardians left the official libertarian party. It's heavily favors the individual, true, but that applies to the person in the womb too.

I can accept someone thinking their still a libertarian, even if they support civil rights, but I don't think that stand on it's own is libertarian. It's a break. I think if the person is libertarian on 95% they still are. However, I think civil rights, breaks with it because it forces other individuals such as private business owners to do something or be punished by the state. Now, if it's the state doing it, such as public buses then I would agree it's liberatarian.

Well the problem with that (the civil rights part) is that discriminatory practices were actually written into law.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That depends on if you think it's an act of aggression because there are many that don't support that part of the platform. That's just a platform for the "party." Many Rothbardians left the official libertarian party. Libertariania heavily favors the individual, true, but that applies to the person in the womb too. Because it's the non-aggression doctrine that unites all the different kinds.

I can accept someone thinking they're still a libertarian, even if they support civil rights, but I don't think that stand on it's own is libertarian. It's a break. I think if the person is libertarian on 95% they still are. From there, it would be declining away from it.

However, I think civil rights, breaks with it because it forces other individuals such as private business owners to do something or be punished by the state. Now, if it's the state doing it, such as public buses then I would agree it's liberatarian to oppose such limits on any person.

I can't believe you think these arbitrary percentages that exist in your mind are meaningful to anyone. It's also nonsense: in your scheme, a person who is "96% libertarian" has not declined away from libertarianism whereas the "94% libertarian" has, even though both are less from 100% libertarianism?

This country isn't libertarian. It's not a theoretical model, and it doesn't exist in a historiless vacuum. It's a living, breathing, evolving mass of people confined to a particularly enlightened skeleton of government.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Well the problem with that (the civil rights part) is that discriminatory practices were actually written into law.

Yes I know. Making blacks sit at the back of a bus was wrong because it was done by the state.
Forcing businesses, who did not want to segregate it's lunch counters for instance, was forced by state law. But for those private businesses that did not want to integrate, they shouldn't be forced to. They'll lose business or not be as successful as those that do.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

But for those private businesses that did not want to integrate, they shouldn't be forced to. They'll lose business or not be as successful as those that do.

You don't know that one bit. You only approach this historical problem with the mindset of an American living in 2013 where blacks and whites do sit next to each other in restaurants.

Some things are against public policy because they are inherently wrong and evil, and invidious discrimination based on racial differences is rightfully considered one of them. And we don't sit around and wait for it to solve itself. We take a stand against it immediately.

[BigChiefTablet]

Congratulations BucEyedPea, you have determined that not everyone pigeonholed into a nice, neat political label actually shares exactly the same ideology on every issue. Alert the media.