The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States, yet a great many people have no idea what libertarianism means, let alone what it stands for.
I invite you all to explore it for yourself, and please do feel free to discuss, comment, disagree, and ask questions. Also, you might find it interesting to take the World's Smallest Political Quiz, to find out where you stand.
I don't want to paint an overly rosy picture that Libertarianism is the only answer to our problems, nor do I want to leave you with the impression that there aren't a host of critics and detractors out there (some Libertarians are extremist to such a degree that even I cannot fathom it).
As of that part, same as communists. Now how do Libertarians plan to do this with the business world? The corporations have the money to make all those things happen. Giving everyone the same opportunity means no homeless, free education, free medical care... Also, having everyone earn the same.
Keep in mind, Ayn Rand was an extremist, even by Libertarian standards.
As for big business and corporations, I know one of the LP platforms is putting an end to corporate welfare.
When you are in a Utopian society, you do not consider it a Utopia, it is every day life.
Haha, maybe true but so irrelevant!
Actually most libertarians simply believe in less government and more sensible laws.
Well, I want to see a real, coherent plan for how this is done. I'm not going to say that I actually like the current system of laws as I happen to think that if not bloated, they're at least anachronistic.
But I'm more concerned about practicalities here. The implications of sweeping aside this bureaucracy and making fundamental, constitutional changes, and whether this is even possible without the whole affair imploding anyway.
Given the suggested variability in the Libertarian platform, I must first know whether Libertarianism actually stands for anything at all apart from a warm, fuzzy sentiment.
No. My point is that these things are thought as propaganda. In schools they teach that Karl Marx had this Utopian idea, that would solve all problems in the world and people would live happy and peacefully... And then they show what happened as a result of people trying to reach this goal, by showing videos of the Russian revolution, etc. Truth is, there will always be problems.
Communism does not guarantee that all problems will be solved! Its just basically giving the workers a control of production to stop the class struggle which causes problems such as this homelessness, poverty, third world countries, greed, and of course every proletarians struggle to live in freedom. Our system is only a system, this is not life, it is changeable.
But Libertarianism cannot solve these problems so easily. Communists at least tend to something (violently) about it >_>
Actually to think about it, libertarians are like the lesser versions of communists.
Its like trying to get the easy way out. I'd say libertarians are those who want the same things as us, but haven't given much thought to it.
That is if you follow this definition:
Libertarians strive for the best of all worlds - a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.
How is the government interfering in our everyday lives? Thats as bad as the propaganda that every person in the USSR was assigned a military soldier to tell them what to do 24/7.
I do not subscribe to the notion that the Soviets had enough soldiers to watch over every citizen every second of every day. They did, however, put up walls and barricades with the intention of keeping their people from defecting. I think that says alot.
It is going to take me a while to answer your question. I am compiling a list.
I feel sort of like Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride: "Let me explain...no time, let me sum up."
I've compiled a short list of the most blatant violations of our civil liberties, our laws, and our trust, as perpetrated by the Bush-43 administration. I could go further back, but this should suffice to make my point.
The Bush-43 Administration has found a nifty legal loophole intended to sidestep any provisions in bills sent to be signed into law by the President: issue Presidential Signing Statements. In these statements, President Bush has explained how he intends to interpret and enforce the law. Bush has issued 157 signing statements, effectively challenging 800 provisions, far more than any other President in the history of the United States (the first 39 Presidents combined only issued 75). Congress has no legal recourse with regards to Presidential Signing Statements.
The "No Child Left Behind" Act requires that public schools meet a dubious litany of federally mandated benchmarks, but has since failed to provide even half of the funding it promised public schools in order to carry it out.
The U.S.A. Patriot Act is a blatant violation of our civil liberties, making it possible for the Federal Government to accuse a citizen of terrorism, arrest them, subject them to unreasonable searches and seizures, and detain them indefinitely; all without the right to a speedy trial by a jury of their peers, or right to an attorney.
On numerous occasions, citizens of the United States have been unlawfully detained for taking stances deemed unpopular, at public appearances by both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, a clear violation of their right to free speech.
George W. Bush and members of his administration blatantly lied to the American people concerning Iraqâs involvement in 9/11 (none), and Saddamâs stockpile of WMDâs, as well as his attempts to procure more (nonexistent) as a precursor for the invasion of a sovereign nation. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost us the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. service members. Estimates of civilian deaths are as high as several hundred thousand.
Members of the Bush-43 Administration have claimed âexecutive privilegeâ in order to avoid answering any questions they donât feel like answering. Itâs as if the entire executive branch under Bush does not believe itself to be accountable to Congress, let alone the American people.
In direct violation of the law of the land, President Bush authorized warrantless wiretaps without getting judicial approval. The Federal Governmentâs own judicial review board has cited the Bush Administration and the Justice Department with multiple violations of spying on Americans without proper authorization. The arguments of needed expediency and national security are without merit. The court is not open to the public, and agents can submit the warrant request up to 72 hours after the fact. The last President to justify spying on the American people was forced to resign in disgrace (Richard M. Nixon).
A good summation of these and more can be found here:
Wait wait wait... back up a second: Why shouldn't private citizens be allowed to own RPGs? Hold on, here me out: If the only reason for not owning a rocket launcher is that it is pointless, isn't banning them more an arbitrary restriction of freedom than "common sense"?
Owning a car from the 1920's that one will never drive is pointless. Should that be illegal? Of course not. Obviously, this rhetorical person sees some value in owning such a car, even if it will not be driven. Maybe he or she likes to collect old cars. Similarly, if someone likes to collect weapons, including functional RPGs, what of it? Why is pointlessly possessing a rocket launcher bad?
What if someone wants an RPG because he or she wants to shoot something with it? As long as this person is blowing up his or her personal property at a safe distance, what's the problem? People blow stuff up for fun all the time (see: Movies). Why is it bad if a private citizen does it?
Some want RPGs in case they need to rise up against the government (or something, maybe, I think, qualifiers). So what? Even if you think this person's fears are laughable, does that mean he or she should not be able to prepare for a threat about which he or she is worried? Why is preparation for revolution in the event that revolution becomes necessary bad?
In short, Id like to hear a stronger argument than "I see no practical purpose for the average citizen to own an RPG."
As for Libertarianism... I forget what I wanted to say D:
My chief criticism of libertarianism? Even in its moderate forms it places far too much faith in the efficiency of the free market. The coral snake anti venom shortage is one example of that only the things with sufficient demand to make them profitable are the things that would be made and provided for. If libertarian ideas were implemented to the fullest extent, I dread to think of what the impact on those poorest in society would be.
That said, I'm a big fan of libertarianism in terms of civil liberties. If they weren't so dogmatic about the free market I'd consider labelling myself one.
Also Drace, not all anarchism is leftist. You are leaving out the incredibly important individualist, anarcho capitalist side of anarchism which is very different to collectivist lefty anarchism. I'd even go as far as saying that pure libertarianism is by definition anarcho capitalism. A complete removal of state authority, relying on the capitalist free market model to provide for everyone's needs. Seems to have ticked the anarchist and capitalist boxes to me.
And Xzeno, I know this may seem harsh, but bear in mind I'm a godless pacifist Brit, but seriously? Anyone dumb enough to want to own an RPG for fear the government sends in an armoured car is too dumb to own one responsibly.
I think it's pretty arrogant to assume that because a group disagrees with you, they haven't thought their ideas through.
Anyway, I think a free market could work more or less effectively if we got rid of the laws which so heavily favor corporations. Especially those ones which treat them like people.
You guys to realize this was pointlessly necro'd, right?
Libertarianism at its most extreme, just as communism, capitalism, liberalism, conservatism, and so forth, is a recipe for disaster. Anyone who believes in one single ideology and believes that's how it should be and all others are wrong, is an idiot.
I find a healthy combo of all is preferable. Free market flourishing, but if some mother of four is starving, let the government help her out a little. Give her a job, at least a better paying job, helping the government out.
Throwing money at these people for doing nothing is pointless. There are plenty of jobs for people (normally, right about now that's not true, what with recession and all).
However, the government thinking it knows everything for us is stupid. Just stupid. Only I know what is best for my personal interests, even if it might be detrimental. That's me falling, not anyone else.
The only restriction I see for the free market is minimum wage. That should be automatic common sense, lest we see sweatshops.
