What does "libertarian" mean to you?

Anarchism
Any of a variety of ideologies sharing the fundamental belief that the and all similar forms of governmental authority are unjustified and oppressive and illegitimate <legitimacy.html> and therefore ought to be abolished, with future social and economic cooperation to be carried out only by means of voluntary relationships and consensual agreements under conditions of perfect legal equality

Libertarianism
A contemporary 20th century political viewpoint or <ideology.html> derived largely from 19th century <liberalism.html>, holding that any legitimate <legitimacy.html> government should be small and should play only the most minimal possible role in economic, social and cultural life, with social relationships to be regulated as much as possible by voluntary <contract.html> and generally accepted custom and as little as possible by statute law. In other words, libertarians believe that the individual should be as free as is practically feasible from government restraint and regulation in both the economic and non-economic aspects of life. Thus, libertarians endorse stricter respect for private property rights <private_property_rights.html>, the establishment of a more <laissez-faire.html> laissez-faire capitalist economic system, rigorous separation of church and state, and greater respect for individual rights to freedom of expression and freedom of choice in personal lifestyles. They oppose government programs for the redistribution of income, the inculcation of "politically correct" values through government schools and propaganda outlets, all forms of government-imposed censorship, the imposition of criminal penalties for the commission of "victimless crimes," and in general all forms of social, economic or cultural "engineering" by the government.

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/

What does Libertarian mean
Fishin, if a libertarian were voted in as president he/she would be under tremendous pressure to be about as far right as it gets.

Do you think our current government is too involved, or not involved enough, in people's lives? Actually, I tend to think government gets involved in people's lives according to how much money we have in our coffers to do just that.

tex-Star

Well, there is an issue there too...in which spheres ought the government to be concerned and which not. I wouldn't be the first person to suggest that some folks who hold for minimal government interfererence as regards matters of business and wealth accumulation seem quite comfortable intruding into bedrooms and tobacco containers.

This may be harsh and possibly a little unfair. However, I get the impression that the libertarian credo is hooray for me and screw you. I have mine and will protect it. If you have nothing to eat go hungry, no place to live try the street and etc. It would seem to me they feel they have no responsibility nor compassion for their fellow man. That goes against almost all the basic rules of a civilized society. I for one would never want to live in such an uncaring dispassionate society. And if it came to that neither would most of the rest of us since as a rule America is a caring society.

Neither is that an accurate characterization of big "L" libertarians. I think this is confusing libertarian with anarchist.

Libertarians, whether large "L" or small, do not ascribe to a "screw everyone else" philosophy, or at least not to any greater degree than people in any other group. They simply don't believe it is a proper function of government to mete out charity in society. Charity existed long before government chose to take such a big role in attempting to assuage the suffering of the poor. To suggest that anyone who believes government should not be involved in charitable work/social programs means to have no help offered to those who need it misses the whole debate. The debate is not whether, but how, and by whom.

=============

And as to libertarians being "extreme right wing", that assessment probably has a lot to do with where you stand on key issues, but you bring up an important point (to me at least); what does "extreme right wing" mean?

The term "right wing" seems to have been stretched to apply to practically anyone who does not espouse a socialist view of the world these days. The media calls Timothy McVeigh a "right-wing extremist". Are we to think he's representative of conservatives? If Jeffrey Daumer voted Democrat, would that make him a "liberal extremist"? Nutcase militia groups around the country are routinely labeled as "right wing" groups, but when exactly have you heard Republicans or conservatives in general advocating taking up arms against the government? What makes these people "right wing" other than perhaps that they represent an opportunity for some people to slander conservatives by the association made in choosing to apply this label so broadly?

The whole "right wing" tag-line really has no value in reasoned discourse. It serves only to pigeon hole a person, group, or point of view as unworthy of consideration. Consider that this term is used today as a label for nazis, fascists, and many other groups that share no values with mainstream conservatives in this country to whom it is also applied. Of what value is a label that is off-handedly used to describe disparate elements that share no common ideology? None.

Did anybody else take the Liberatarian website's "shortest political test? It was interesting, especially the breakdown provided afterwards along with some explanatory notes.

My suspicion about the appeal of libertarianism (whether capitalized or not) is that it varies in proportion to how well an individual is doing. Those who are secure financially, in good health, and without other big problems may think it makes a lot of sense. Those less fortunate may not.

The idea of neighbors banding together to organize health-care systems seems a bit naive. What happens when a kid needs a heart transplant?

I just took the test, Piffka, it nailed me!

Re: What does Libertarian mean


They would be under equeal pressure to be about as far left as it gets too. If a libertarian was elected the issue of any repeal of Roe v. Wade would be moot. It isn't the governments decison to make one way or the other. Most drug laws we currently have would also be repealed amongst many others. Those are not positions normally attributed to the "far right".



When you total up the intrusions into our lives by local, county, state and Federal laws I'd say that the government is most certianly to involved in our lives. Every law created is an intrusion into someone's life. The more laws you have, the more intrusions.

"the more corrupt a nation is, the more laws it enacts" edward abbey

Why does the idea seem naive? I keep seeing comments from those that oppose (perhaps to strong a word but..) libertarianism that "we are a civilized society" and we have managed to band together to organize government to build hospitals for us. We also have thousands of privately run hospitals. If we can band together to form government to do these things for us why can't we just band together and do it without government?

The answer there is that by letting government do it for us we can intrude into the lives of people that disagree with us and force them to conform to our ideas because all we need is a simply majority to enforce our will on others.

That's because it passes laws covering its own transgressions, dys.
If only we were all perfect and there were no Enrons. Libertarianism is a theory like communism. It's interesting to read about but doesn't work very well in action. It's spirit certainly should have an influence on the way government conducts itself. The trouble with a weaker central government is that the state and local governments go astray. I've always maintained that the stealth of corruption in government is always aimed at Washington while the state and local governments get away with murder.

The trouble is there really has never been a good government and never will be. The favorite of the conservatives, is that this is true but we've got the best. The best of the worst.

D'Artagnan -- Have you read about how Group Health Cooperative got started in Seattle? They were naive when they began, but they're now one of the more popular and affordable health providers in this state. I suppose they're not quite a co-op anymore, but it is an example of a group of community people were able to get together to provide health care.

I can't think how GHC handled outside surgeries... but I know that there were arrangements available.

Trespassers, you state The Libertarian Philosophy, or your interpretation of it ... arguably, in libertarian sense the same thing ... cogently, concisely, and with conviction. I admire both your style of writing and your style of reasoning. I particulary enjoyed your rhetorical "Of what value is a label that is off-handedly used to describe disparate elements that share no common ideology? None".

When you are on-topic, you are clearly "on point" and address issues. Whether any other may or may not be in agreement with your assessments, conclusions, and/or opinions, you are a respectable champion for yor point of view (even the cockeyed parts of it ( ), and your perspective on issues promotes, sometimes even invokes, diverse, thoughtful discussion, apart from the fact not all interactors will always be exclusively issue oriented.

Again, welcome to A2K. I imagine, if you stick around, you well may become one of those very rare folks with whom one can discuss issues of differing personal perspective in most enjoyable and profitable manner. There are lots of folks like that here. Glad I found 'em. Oh, and as a welcome selection of side courses accompanying the meat of THE ISSUES, I believe you'll find a mind-boggling selection of silliness, inanity, and other diverting entertainments are offered on the menu here, along with advice, well meant if not always well realized, of incredible variety. Ejnjoy yourself.




timber (who doesn't always stick to the topic himself)

Piffka, I do know a fair amount about GHC and how they served as a model for a health-care cooperative. But I also know that they're in a lot of trouble right now for financial reasons. This isn't inside info; it's been widely reported in the local media. They're not alone in this by any means, but it suggests that these cooperative arrangements, though well intended, aren't immune to market forces.

Right, not immune to market influences, for sure. Is anything?

I belonged to GHC for a while and had good & bad experiences. At least I always felt I had the same health care as those around me, and I loved their 24 hour phone nurse. What a joy and a relief for young mothers to have someone to call. I guess I felt they responded to their membership and tried to support what seemed to be the most pressing needs.

It might surprise you that not everyone judges the value of the system of government based solely on how much he or she anticipates benefiting directly therefrom. My mother has favored a federal prescription drug program for the elderly for years, because she is in her sixties and would benefit personally from it. Sadly, she gives no thought to whether it is the best solution to the perceived problem, or whether the benefit to her is outweighed by the burden placed on others.

I could dream up reams of federal programs that would take money from someone else's pocket and put it in mine, but I would not support one of them. It's not wrong because I'm on the injured side, it's wrong because it's wrong.

What libertarian ideals I hold, I hold not because I believe I will benefit under them, but because I believe more would benefit under them than benefit under our current system.

Timber - Thanks for the kind words. When I'm not stepping in it, on it, or around it, I hope I occasionally stumble into a valid thought or two. I'm still sussing out the lay of the land; learning where to tread lightly, and where not to tread at all. :wink:

Thank You Blatham,...you were quite thorough.
Thank you TW,....Yuo were very lucid and concise.
Together, you two put Webster's Collegiate, to shame.

Au1929,...You seem to have missed the point.