What does "libertarian" mean to you?

I do know that the European definition of this term is very different to the US-American one.

Here, one thinks of Hobbes, Locke, Palmerston, Rousseau,
the yeasr about 1830 - 1848 on the one site.
Regarding modern politics, we are confronted on the other with the right-center to right wing liberal parties of some countries. (Excluding the LDP in the UK!)

Thus, I will follow this thread with great interest.

Have no Idea what the Libertarians actually believe in. The few times I have been confronted with one of their beliefs I have been in total disagreement. I will watch and listen and maybe learn.

I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a libertarian, but I think their essential premise is "the government that governs best, governs least." They oppose laws against victimless crimes (e.g., drug use and prostitution). They're probably against most taxes, too.

(If I'm wrong in the above, please correct me...)

They run candidates in several (many?) jurisdictions, so maybe there are web sites out there that can enlighten us!

In the interest of providing info for those who seek it, here's their official web site. Again, I don't endorse these guys...

http://www.lp.org/

I like to think of myself as a libertarian (note the small "l" as opposed to the big "L" as in the "Libertarian Party".) but I'm probably not sold on it as much as others are.

My basic concept is that as a libertarian I am my own first resouce for everything and that escalating levels of government are the LAST resources. Obviously there are some issues where this is impractical. I certianly couldn't fend off an invading country and neither could any one of us by ourselves. Even collectively we'd have to have training and coordination to be effective so issues of national defense are usually left the province of Federal government. The same is true at varying levels with things like water usage where one person can't control ground water tables so the government should have some role in use planning and advice.

I believe I have a social responsibility to ensure others have what they NEED to survive but not to provide them with what they WANT. If others want something (a material item like a building or a park for example) it is up to them to obtain it (legally) on their own or to coordinate with others of a like mind to work together collectively to obtain their goal. It isn't the province of government to step in and control or influence the outcome of that effort though. I don't believe we have a social responsibility to make up for others losses that are due to their own bad decisisons as long as they are mentally comptent to make such decisions. The government has no business in "protecting us" from ourselves.

The function of government should be to ensure that each of us has the ability to live our lives according to our own free will and should act only when one's free will interferes with someone else's right of free will. Our system of laws should be minimal and extremely simple.

Probably a few thousand others things too but that's a start...

I agree with most of what you say, fishin', including the proper role of gov't. The problem is deciding what people need that gov't should provide. I, for example, believe in universal health care...

D'artagnan- I believe that the government has no place in controlling the economic lives of any of its citizens- and that includes physicians!

I would disagree that Universial Health Care (at least the concept that is usually bandied about) is a "need". I would agree that there is a need for access to medical treatment at varying levels for emergency and critical care but beyond that I'd classify most other medical care as a "want". Human beings have survived for thousands of years without Universial Health Care. Medical care in the US right now is mostly "want".

"Needs" are base level IMO. Basic food stuffs, a basic shelter from the elements, etc.. If someone is incapable of providing those things for themselves then IMO the lowest level of government capable should step in and provide it until the individual is capable of providing for themselves again.

Now if you and 5,000 of your neighbors agree that you want to setup a medical care co-op amongst yourselves that is your choice and you should be free to do that but IMO, you shouldn't be able to use the government to force others to join through taxiation, etc..

This reminds me of a definition of the libertarian point of view that I heard about a year ago which said, "Don't hurt me, and don't take my stuff." This was specifically meant to tie into those things for which we look to government for help; defense and the right to our property.

so in the following case anyone have any thoughts? my brother 4 months ago, aged 43, highly educated systems analyst suffered a subarchnoid hemorrhage resulting in aphasia, intermittent tonic/clonic seizures, partial blindness, the surgery and attending hospital care came to just under 1 million $, he most likely is able to and would like to continue working, be self supporting but could not get medical insurance re existing conditon leaving him with the only option to go on disablity.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking for there dys. Are you asking what would happen with him is a purely libertarian society?


(I'm no medical expert but I assume what you saying is that he had some of brain anurism?)

yeah fishin' the deal is he would like to be working but what is stopping him is the inability to get medical coverage.

Well, in my own vision of a complete libertarian society medical insurance might be provided by an employer but most likely it wouldn't. Medical care would be covered through your local co-op along with your neighbors so it would never have been tied to his employment to begin with.

He and his neighbors would have gotten together years ago and hired their own team of doctors, nurses, etc.. and built a local hosptial to handle their medical care and they'd probably have reciprocal privlidges with other hospitals for care that they couldn't handle locally. (Just like he might travel to a large city for care now..)

He would have been paying "premiums" to the co-op for his coverage all along and in my little world the co-op would have wavied his premiums while he was unemployed (because his neighbors are all libertarians too and they all agreed that they'd do that when someone wasn't able to work..).

He could go back to work as soon as he was medically cleared and able since medical insurance wouldn't have been a consideration and when he went back to work and started getting paychecks again he would resume paying his "premiums".

Isn't a libertarian, the one who helps you find books in the library?.....
...But seriously folks, according to webster's definition, I would say I am definately a libertarian, as long as it doesn't trample on the rights of others.
...One more thing; libertarian sounds better than anarchist. but it's hard to determine the difference. Can someone elucidate.

What does Libertarian mean
Libertarian to me means you just take care of yourself, your neighbor takes care of himself. Everybody has the means to take care of his own self, right?

No, everyone doesn't. We are intelligent civilized human beings. We help each other.

For some reason I've always thought Libertarians would even like to rather shut out the rest of the world and eat what we grow, use what we manufacture. The heck with the rest of the world.

I don't really care what they (Libertarians) are but there are lots of them here in Texas. Like, you just get a gun and take care of yourself. I don't mean I'm thinking of doing that. What I mean is...what else is there? Too much "good-ole-boy ism."

Tex-star, you are mixing little "l' libertarians with big "L" Libertarains. The "Big L" people tend to extreme right wing.

"Little l" libertarians don't dismiss their neighbors as unnecessary. The idea isn't that everyone takes care of themselves and to hell with everyone else. It is that they rely on themselves and the relationships they cultivate first and rely on government as a last resort.

Yeah, that's me, little l.

I see The Libertarian Platform as rendered in The US as simplistic, absolutist, and riddled with political, economic, and ethical inconsistencies. I am libertarian (small "l") in some aspects but do not sympathize much with the Big "L" Version. I characterize myself as politically independent, and not particularly satisfactorily served by any one of the current political paries. This sometimes results not in supporting the best possible solution, but in selecting the least objectionable alternative from among the available likely propositions. Among the considerations of the value of an action is the likelyhood of acheiving a particular thing or condition by means of that action. We have what amounts to a two-party system. Third-Party politics have little effective impact. I believe it better to vote against a proposition with which you strongly disagree even if you are not in full agreement with the opposition. A Third Party vote does not contribute to the defeat of an undesired proposition, and rarely offers chance of electoral success on its own, in my experience.




timber

I'll take a stab at it...

An anarchist believes we need no government, that we should each fend for ourselves.

A libertarian believes we need government to ensure our liberty and our security and to enforce the rule of law.

In an anarchist society the only thing that protects you, your family, and your property from others is whatever defense you can offer yourself or with the help of others with whom you've joined for that purpose. The only defense available against foreign powers is whatever mob you can pull together.

In a libertarian society people live under laws that protect them from harm and protect their property from theft or destruction. If you take my stuff or harm me, the government arrests and jails you. The government also maintains military readiness to protect against invasion or attack, which is actually just a macro-example of theft or assault anyway.

In both cases no one sets rules for how individuals behave where it does not harm others. People are free to live as they choose, and liberty is the primary goal. The ironic thing is that people living under a libertarian government enjoy greater liberty than those under anarchy, because they are freed to some extent from the fear of being victimized by those stronger or less ethical than they.

This is all off the top of my head, and as with anything found there, is therefor suspect. :wink: