What do you think of libertarians?

You know, one of those smaller lil political parties.

a libertarian.

I still haven't changed my party... I will soon though.. I swear it. :P

. . . true libertarians have been against the Iraq invasion (unlike the phony "libertarian" Neal Boortz) but they are also against any regulation of corporations/utilities at all.

Best served hot with a side of buttered veggies.

Oh wait... you mean what do I think of their *politics*?

I think anyone who trusts Big Government in a Capitlist economcy is just silly.

Mojo

a long time ago, circa early 70's, I was involved in getting the Free Libertarian Party of NY set up. Great bunch of people (some of the libertarian wimmen were real beleivers in sexual freedom) but way too argumentative. As bad as the Trotskyites or any other ideological group in the way that it was more important to be doctrinarily correct than politically effective. It seemed to me that we spent days more time debating what we should do than doing anything at all.

Plus, the battles between the objectivist/Randians and the out-and-out anarchists (of various schools) were as vicious as anything you could imagine.

It amazes me that they are still around thirty years later but that is probably a testament to the fact that the principles underlying the philosophy have some validity to them. However, as a political movement, they truly are like trying to herd cats.

Where's the choice for "fuckn' nuts"?

They called themselves libertarians, but basically went along with the Repuke Party, seemingly unconcerned about their hypocrisy over outlawing abortion.

Also, I could never agree with those who think the free market should be totally unregulated. For reference to my views, do a search on Enron.

...and they're so frumpy. But sometimes, when they let their hair down...



Oh, sorry. I thought you said "librarians."

party with anyone else, even those paragons of selfishness, the republicans.

And what is with the obsession about tax codes?! Haven't they ever heard the old saying about "death and taxes?" DO they think they're exempt from that shit? Why not try to repeal the "inevitability of death," too?

Maybe there's some libertarians on this board, and if there are, I'm sorry if this post offended you. But I just don't see the central tenets of libertarian thought as being sensible or attractive- that's just me, though....

If you don't want to pay taxes move to desert island.

The ones I've known wanna smoke dope, don't want to pay taxes ("I have no kids, WHY should I pay for schools, etc.") and think that Capitalism/business works best for everyone when there's no government regulation.
They usually have some jumbled ideas about "Personal Rsponsibility" when asked about things like food and drug laws, safe products, etc.

Weird fuckers. Reminds me of some 19-y-o metalheads debating Anarchy....

Is the fact that the self-described libertarians I have met have so much faith in corporate america....but yet do not trust the "government"....yet in reality everyone is part of the government(voting) and has an opportunity to participate in government (running for office).... in corporate america you are at the mercy of whatever nonsense is dealt out and typically you have no rights in a corporation unless the government (people) have legislatively given you rights because the people have asked for protection from the corporate bogeymen...

but hey..to each his own.

when we all know those barriers have been eroded for some time now. I always found it strange how they believe in "small gov't" and "big business" and don't see that the lobbyists from big businesses have far too much influence over said small government.

And as much as I'd like to think of myself as an individual, nothing ever gets done if you're alays seperating yourself from groups because of your "principles." Proceeding as a group to solve a problem is usually the best way- that's why I can't stand Randians, either...It's like they can't see the consequences their selfish actions have on others. It's all me, me, me, all the fucking time...as if YOU'RE so fucking special, right?

Libertarianism is okay if you live in a cabin in Idaho and your nearest neighbor lives hundreds of miles aay, and you can pat yourself on the back for being such a "rugged individual," but that shit won't fly in the big city, where it is immediately apparent that we are our brother's keeper and that all humans are interconnected. They see everything through their on eyes exclusively and can't broach the possibility of the importance of other viewpoints.

And hey, I don't give a shit about paying taxes...if it's going to the poor, good! If it's going to build roads, good! Where the hell else is the money going to come from?!

they are Republicans with even less of a social conscience.

I don't see them as particularly desireable - though the Free Staters are supposed to be moving here, en masse.

It would be all well and good that we have a perfect freedom and everyone takes their freedom and personal responsibilities seriously. People would become more involved with their communities and make sure that bad business goes out of business. Industry would form indepentent accreditation groups ensuring good business. Private individuals and organizations would give to the poor. There would be no need for government interference.
While this might be a nice fantasy, most regulations on business were passed for a reason. Social programs were set up for a reason. The reasons weren't simply ideaological. They were reactionary necessities. Also, some business has grown so big that no individuals stand a chance against them. The press is controlled by big corporations as well. There will be no big headlines against most businesses who violate public welfare in a Liberatrian world.

That it's too idealistic. More along the lines of a capitalist utopia. (Just think Disney getting into the gambling and prostitution business). It may or may not work with a small, largely rural population, but sooner or later, somebody is going to have to bail NH out because unregulated capitalism means few winners and alot of losers. It definitely will not work with a large population.

When you're younger, it's attractive because it is a very simplistic philosophy and you can feel you've figured something out without all that painful deep thinking. But it really fails the logic test. The older you get, the more you see that if you don't have a strong referee for the people in the form of an empowered government, the more you will be crushed by opportunistic individuals and corporations. The Old West -- where a man could be free from the gov't and the rule of law -- is still scarred to this day by the poisons from old mines if you go out and look at the dead ghost towns. Filthy air, filthy water, you could be shot dead for a damn horse. No thank you.

The same people who wouldn't bet on a football game played without an umpire want corporations to run free without oversight. It's crazy.

Many of the libertarians I know are sweet people personally but have no real capacity for logic.

-- very much a former libertarian

The "New Libertarian" is, as my carny/rennie pal told me once,

"A Republican without the strength of his own convictions"

:bounce:

I agree with them on many issues, except if corporations are allowed to lobby with government protections, then workers should be allowed to organize with government protections. Like Republicans, they want socialism for businesses without any corresponding benefit for the average citizen.

Not sure the name of the song, but it's Supertramp, and the line goes:

"Dreamer, nothing but a dreamer."

So I guess that's what I think of Libertarians.

sence to believe in it. Libertarians know that there will never be a libertarian government so they risk nothing by preaching it. It's like preaching the sky should to be red.

but the utopianism and radicalism reminds me of communists, who seem to think that their system will make everything OK. Peace and Freedom for all if you just follow the path....

are what suburban brats turn into when they allegedly grow up: "Nothing is more important than my whims and my money, and the hell with everybody else. Only now I realize that I need some kind of high-sounding philosophy of freedom to excuse that behavior."

and he's the only one I discuss politics with regularly.

He's a total Clinton hater - but he hates Jr. as much - and he hated Sr. as well. He voted for Jr. however, because of his Clinton hatred. He didn't think Jr. could be *this* bad -

He, unlike any republican I've ever met, truly IS mad at Clinton because he LIED - and it doesn't have anything to do with sex for him. The fact that he lied about something there was NO reason for him to be hounded about is irrevelant to my boss. He says he would have had much more respect for Clinton if he'd just said "It's none of your effing BUSINESS" - but the whole finger wagging "I did NOT have..." televised denial by Clinton really pissed him off. He and I do not agree on Clinton at ALL in that regard - but we do share a dislike of things like NAFTA, etc that Clinton helped pass.

We do agree on many things - sometimes for the same reason, other times we arrive at agreement from completely different directions.

I can't STAND his views on social issues - he feels everyone should be responsible for themselves, and if you can't make it on your own, oh well. Example - drugs should be legal. If people want to destry their lives and "rot their brains" - more power to 'em. In his ideal world people that want to do heroin should be able to purchase it at some sort of clinic. When we all start tripping over burned out addicts in the gutters - oh well. Those addicts made their own choices that landed them in the gutters - better to step over them than offer them a hand. :eyes:

He is completely against the war on "terra" - and the war on drugs. He is against the Iraq invasion as well.

What I really don't get is his adoration of Reagan. I was only 8 years old when Reagan was first elected, so it's very difficult for me to argue why Reagan was *bad*. He believes Reagan had no knowledge of the Iran/Contra thing - and wasn't responsible. But then he argues that Carter was responsible for military snafus during his term because the president knows all and has final say in military matters. He believes Reagan was a genuine, honest person.

We have a $5 bet riding on the 2004 elections. He bets that there is no way in HELL Jr. will be elected. I bet that the general public is blind enough to hand him another term. Furthermore, even IF joe public has an awakening and turns out en masse to vote the bastard out that's no guarantee we won't be seeing 4 more years of Chimpy. The 2000 election hardened my cynicism, but didn't completely remove my hope and faith in humanity. The 2002 elections ensured that nothing could suprise me anymore - and left me believing that the depth of public ingorance knows no bounds.