What about libetarianism (the conceptual ideology, not the party) do you dislike or oppose?

[crmoore]

[nightdrot]

Libertarianism mistakes the purposes of freedom at the most fundamental level. This while at the same time presuming that if human beings - flawed and imperfect beings at the best of times - are left to themselves this will somehow conduce to the good. It is a mistake piled onto a presumption and makes libertarianism the reducio ad absurdum of political philosophy.

To start, freedom is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. Its' purpose is to allow the individual to discover the means to his happiness and the attainment of virtue as these things are not, immediately and of themselves, obvious. What makes one man happy and conducive to his virtue will not necessarily work for another man. Freedom gives scope for the individual - and thence society collectively - to discern what virtue is and what conduces to his happiness.

Aristotle said that the first questions of politics are, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?" At the collective level, freedom allows society to define what it deems to be justice and virtue, balancing this against the need to give scope to individual liberty.

The libertarian cuts the society out of this picture. By semantic fiat the libertarian says that the amalgam of what all individuals do in total freedom is, by default, the collective good. The problem being immediately obvious, that such absolute freedom is not only not necessarily virtuous, but may even conduce to the antithesis of freedom.

The 18th century British statesman and political philosopher Edmund Burke famously said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations." If the individual chooses to study medicine and invents a cure for cancer, society will applaud. If the individual chooses to open a store and impinge on African-Americans by segregating the lunch counter, it is more problematic, and at the collective level is called Jim Crow.

This not to mention the irreducible conflict between freedoms that such liberty conduces to. The freedom of the segregationist must, by definition, restrict the freedom of the African-American.

This getting even more fundamentals when questions like abortion come up. "Right to life" vs. "right to choose." Where liberty is the absolute standard there is no metric to weigh one against the other and it ultimately comes down to a measure of power. He - or she - who has the power to impose his or her will will have the freedom and the other will forfeit their freedom.

Liberty is a tool and not an end. It works well in economics - but even there limits must be imposed. In the broader society it allows the individual scope to pursue happiness and to define virtue and allows a society of imperfect beings to debate and refine just what virtue is and how best to live by that standard.

Governing is hard and is a never ending balancing act. The libertarian greatly oversimplifies it by semantic fiat. To quote Burke again, "To make a government requires no great prudence. Settle the seat of power, teach obedience, and the work is done. To give freedom is still more easy. It is not necessary to guide; it only requires to let go the rein. But to form a free government; that is, to temper together these opposite elements of liberty and restraint in one work, requires much thought, deep reflection, a sagacious, powerful, and combining mind.”

The libertarian says that is all nonsense, merely "let go the rein" and the work is done. This based on, to quote for Chesterton, "... a theological theory that providence had so made the world that men might be happy through their selfishness; or, in other words, that God would overrule everything for good, if only men could succeed in being sufficiently bad."

[crmoore]

Why is it that people always attribute Libertarianism to its most extreme point on the spectrum?

Aren't there moderate libertarians? Or center-down libertarians? (Rather than "center-left liberals")

Why is it that Libertarianism is only regarded as "total freedom" or "let go the rein." Is it not within the scope of reasonable possibility that a more moderate, or simply even less extreme approach to Libertarianism could be taken?

[nightdrot]

Well, because words carry meaning. Grant that those meanings change with time.

Thus what Americans call conservative now was actually classical liberalism - albeit with a strand of social traditionalism that has its origins in the Protestant Reformation. From which, ironically enough, classical liberalism sprang.

Libertarianism, in its turn, was born of that classical liberalism.

That said, you did not ask about American strands of libertarianism, you asked about the philosophy. Without any further guidance in the question, the respondent is left to fall back on the classical definition of the term.

That said, even had you done so, there still would have been fair questions to ask insofar as a philosophy that, at its' root, defines freedom as an end in itself becomes problematic when it then attempts to put limits on that freedom. By what standard does it define those limits and what are the criteria?

Suffice to say, whole books of political philosophy have been written on the subject - and I have read more than a few of them. To capture those nuances in 6000 characters would have been difficult, to say the least.

The bottom line being that the respondent can only respond in the terms postulated by the questioner. Had you said, "American libertarianism" or "moderate libertarianism," it would have bee possible to provide a more nuanced answer. Even then, however, you would have been obliged to provide some detail as to what you meant by the use of such term or terms.

[crmoore]

I don't see how that explains why the most extreme interpretation is the first interpretation. We don't assume conservatives want laissez-faire capitalism, and we don't assume liberals want socialism. Saying "well you weren't specific" doesn't support the notion that assuming extremities is the most reasonable course of action.

[nightdrot]

It is not extreme. That is the definition of Libertarianism.

The idea that liberty is an end in itself and that man is spontaneously rational and social and that the interference of law and the state corrupts that basic civility and rationality. Thus, "that government is best which governs least."

If you have a different or more specific definition of libertarianism, feel free to pass it along and I would be happy to discuss it. As I said, I have a degree in political philosophy and so I simply went to the text-book definition of the term.

Classical liberalism was based on the idea of the social contract. That is that man agrees to give up certain rights in order to deal with the inconveniences in the state of nature. Libertarianism took this a step further and argued that the social contract was unnecessary and an intrusion on human freedom and thus corrupting of human nature.

Leave man totally free and he will, spontaneously live in harmony with his fellows.

Again, if you are aware of a different definition, please pass it along and I would be happy to debate it.

[crmoore]

Before I respond, can you explicitly quote the definition of Libertarianism that you're referring to?

[nightdrot]

In brief, libertarianism seek to maximize individual autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association above all other values.

Now the implications of this I have already discussed in outline above. Please explain where you a divergence from this definition or the implications of it.

[crmoore]

That seemed more like you expressing your interpretation, rather than "explicitly quoting the definition" like I had requested, but I suppose this suffices. (Though if you feel like quoting a more direct definition, I'd like to hear it)

It seems to me like you're interpreting the definition too literally. You say assuming the extremities is reasonable because the definition says that's what it is. But if this literal interpretation of the definition truly is an accurate perspective, then wouldn't there be no spectrum of Libertarianism, since Libertarianism wants to maximize individual freedom, and minimize governmental intervention?

Isn't there only one "maximum" and one "mininum" feasibly attainable? Meaning the political plane would look for so like this:

http://imgur.com/a/BVgRfnj

Rather than this:

http://imgur.com/a/jYkq64E

Interpreting that literally is unreasonable. Libertarianism can be, and is, more than just "total freedom," "letting go of the reins," and "the best government is the least government."

(Response continued below)

[crmoore]

I mean, if you can't get more authoritarian than maximum governmental control, then that must be the furthest point on the north side of the authoritarian-to-libertarian axis, and if you can't get less libertarian than minimal governmental control, then that must be the furthest point on the south side of the authoritarian-to-libertarian axis. And according to you, minimal governmental control is Libertarianism. Thus, your interpretation of Libetarianism is inherently its extremity. There is nothing beyond minimal governmental control, that is the end, that is the extremity.

And since you oppose the notion that Libertarianism can be anything less than "minimal governmental control" and "total freedom," then you're telling me that the political plane looks like this: http://imgur.com/a/BVgRfnj . And if not, doesn't that conflict with your notion that Libertarianism is this extreme ideology advocating for "letting go of the reins?" If the political plane doesn't look like this, how would you describe someone who is placed at these two following points on the spectrum?

http://imgur.com/a/Mzp4z3P

And if this interpretation of Libertarianism isn't the extremity, can you please point out at which point along the authoritarian-to-libertarian spectrum/axis "total freedom/minimal governmental control" is located?

And please, answer all these questions directly and explicitly. Avoiding doing so will only prolong this discususon and cause it to become messy.

[nightdrot]

Your charts are inadequate. Please give to me a one or two sentence definition of libertarianism as you conceive of it.

Forgive me, but I don't deal in art, I deal in philosophical constructs. In this case, for the most general definition I could find, I went to "Political Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction 1st Edition" edited by David Miller.

To be sure, I would not normally go to such an elementary source, but I thought it would give you the most objective starting point. Further, in any case, I should not have to be chasing you around the intellectual maypole - and dealing in fanciful charts - to get an answer from you.

You said my initial definition was not correct. My second too elementary.

So now it is your turn. I am genuinely willing to have a serious discussion with you and intend absolutely no offense. However, if you want that discussion it is up to lay out in the clearest possible terms, just what it is you believe you are discussing.

Frankly, at this point - and again I absolutely intend no offense - but I am not sure that you quite know what you are professing. You know what you do NOT like or agree with, but no indication of what principle you DO agree with.

Give me a definition and any qualifications you deem appropriate and we can start from there. Otherwise, it is not impossible to have this discussion - it is pointless.

[nightdrot]

P. S. The problem with your charts is that they are far too abstract and rely on terminology that you are then left to define as well.

For example, the terms "right," "left" and so forth, are not terribly helpful. The usage comes out of the French revolution, when supporters of a republic sat to the left of the Speaker's chair in the National Assembly, while supporters of the Church and the monarchy sat to the right. While these are common usage in contemporary politics, they actually don't say very much.

So you are then left in a game of infinite regress. Define the term by then using more terms that you must further define and contextualize.

It makes far more sense for you to define your term and then place whatever qualifiers or such that you need within that definition.

[crmoore]

To preface, I have been rather honest in portions of this response. Some of them may not be the most palatable, and I feel as though filtering what was said would hinder the idea conveyed. I apologize in advance if you find any of it off-putting, and if that is the case, I ask you to please bear with it and continue the discussion.

The part of the chart we're dealing with, that being the authoritarian-to-libertarian spectrum, is not inadequate.

And libertarianism is a spectrum, so it can't be explicitly defined unlike many other words, it's not a single thing. It's a spectrum of ideas and beliefs.. But generally speaking, these individuals are in favor of less governmental control/influence on our lives or economy. To what degrees or extents heavily vary. It's just like conservative or liberal, not all liberals harbor the same beliefs. Some liberals are more liberal than other liberals, some conservatives are less conservative than other conservatives. Because that, too, is a spectrum. Two axes (plural of axis) on a plane.

I'm not sure what you mean by "you don't deal in art." Are you seriously telling me the chart was a work of art, rather than an visual representation of information? It certainly seems that way, given your following comment of "I should not have to be chasing you around the intellectual maypole - and dealing in fanciful charts - to get an answer from you." And there's a bit of irony, here, as I have been desperately begging you to address my refutations.

(Response continued in the following comment)

[crmoore]

Here's a list of things that you did not address from my last response alone:

1. If libertarianism is defined as, and only regards, the belief in maximizing freedom and minimizing government, then wouldn't there not be a spectrum of libertarianism, considering you have to believe in only the maximization of freedom and minimization of government? Making anyone who believes in a little less than the maximization of freedom or a little more than the minimization of government not a libertarian? Even though they agree on virtually everything, except the extends in which they believe these things are slightly shifted?

2. According to you, minimal governmental control is Libertarianism. Thus, your interpretation of Libetarianism is inherently its extremity. There is nothing beyond minimal governmental control, that is the end, that is the extremity.

3. You're telling me that the political plane looks like this: http://imgur.com/a/BVgRfnj . And if not, doesn't that conflict with your notion that Libertarianism is this extreme ideology advocating for "letting go of the reins?" If the political plane doesn't look like this, how would you describe someone who is placed at these two following points on the spectrum? http://imgur.com/a/Mzp4z3P . And if this interpretation of Libertarianism isn't the extremity, can you please point out at which point along the authoritarian-to-libertarian spectrum/axis "total freedom/minimal governmental control" is located? And please, answer all these questions directly and explicitly. Avoiding doing so will only prolong this discussion and cause it to become messy.

[crmoore]

I get the feeling that these points do a good job at undermine your stance, and that may be way you're unwilling to address/answer them. And if not, please address them now, as you refuting them would help me understand why my perspective is incorrect.
And I didn't say your definition was incorrect, per se, I said you're being too literal. That definition is applicable to some libertarians, but it's the extreme ones. That definition tries to get the general idea of what a libertarian is, of which is most easily done by regarding the most notable and extreme example. But a libertarian isn't one thing, one person, or one set of ideas.

(Response continued in the following comment)

[crmoore]

And you wanting "the clearest possible terms" is problematic, because it's difficult to "in clear terms" describe the contents of a spectrum. Let me give you an example. You have the color red, and you have the color orange. In between red and orange, you have a plethora of other colors (this is what I'm referring to, if you aren't familiar: www.colorcodehex.com/html-color-picker.html ), the vertical box containing all the colors here is a spectrum. You have countless, theoretically even an infinite amount, of places between red and orange. If the places between red and orange are finite, you could theoretically define each and every one, but that is unreasonable, it would take too long. The same goes for the spectrum of authoritarianism to libertarianism. It's a spectrum with many, possibly an infinite amount, of points from one side to the other. Except this, unlike the colors, is much, more complicated and subsequently exponentially harder to define each individual point along the spectrum. But the best way that I can think to explain it, which I'd imagine wouldn't be sufficient enough for you, is libertarianism is the extent in which you believe government should have control or influence on our lives or economy, leaning more towards less control/influence (as authoritarianism would be the same except leaning more towards more control/influence).

(Response continued in the following comment)

[crmoore]

And no, I do know what I'm professing. And I think your inability to refute, let alone address, simple question supports this notion. Quite frankly, I question whether it's you who doesn't quite understand what they're professing. I don't know who a studied man like yourself can say libertarianism is "total freedom" and not be able to admit that you can't be more free then entirely free, thus, it's the extremity. I don't know how you're not understanding spectrums, especially as someone who has a degree in political philosophy.

And I do agree with "left" and "right" being poor indicators. I'm of the opinion they should be "liberal" and "conservative," of which other political planes do use. It's generally used to describe your fiscal/economic beliefs. But "left" and "right" aren't relevant here. You do not need to understand what that means in order to understand authoritarianism and libertarianism.

[nightdrot]

First of all, I am going to be honest with you and tell you that I did not read the whole of what you wrote. I don't find anything that you said to be offputting. Rather I find it opaque.

(Offputting? Why in heaven's name would I find it offputting. I did not read the question as an attack upon myself and, in any case, I don't know you and have no reason to take this personally.)

You did not ask about the various strains of libertarianism or the spectrum of ideas, you asked about libertarianism. I therefore responded to the basic question.

Had you defined it or listed a specific variant, I would have dealt with that. Instead, you asked about libertarianism and therefore I used the generic definition and explained the flaws in the theory, citing among other classical conservatives like Burke.

As to this: "Are you seriously telling me the chart was a work of art, rather than an visual representation of information? "

Yup, I am seriously telling you that. Pictures are NOT a adequate substitute for words. They may supplement those words, but the words are the starting point. Instead you left me with a visual representation that is both problematic as a description of libertarianism and employs words that are themselves require definition given that I have been left to assume that your use of the basic term of libertarianism is, itself, somehow not that which is typically used in discussions of political philosophy, or alternatively appears to be a moving target.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

Finally, you write, "If libertarianism is defined as, and only regards, the belief in maximizing freedom and minimizing government, then wouldn't there not be a spectrum of libertarianism, considering you have to believe in only the maximization of freedom and minimization of government?"

No definition begins with IF. That is, in fact, the basic definition of libertarianism. That is all that it is. In my reply I discussed the theoretical underpinnings of that basic belief and why I believe that they are flawed.

A more expansive definition of the basic term would require that you specify what libertarianism is supposed to be. This I still have not seen from you.

So I ask again, if libertarianism is NOT the maximization of freedom and the minimization of government, tell me what it is. Either your conception is consistent with the understood meaning of the philosophy - in which case we can debate its merits - or if it is not, I can piece together what broader philosophy it is to which you appear to be referring.

As it is, at this point, you have left me with a rhetorical doughnut. To repeat, no definition begins with IF.

[nightdrot]

If you know what it is that you are professing, define it specifically and we can proceed from there. Define libertarianism and the precepts that you believe it includes. Reference libertarian thinkers if you think that would help.

Then we can proceed. At this point, you appear to have a definition that says a lot - but not very much.

[nightdrot]

Oh, and one last thing. The problem with arguing that you cannot define libertarianism as it spans a spectrum is that it then becomes impossible to discuss it at all.

If I say, libertarianism is "X," you will say "No, it is Y." Round and round we will go. Thus you need to offer a specific concrete definition and then we can proceed from there. I offered you a defintion drawn from a college text on basic political philosophy. If you have another you prefer we can use that.

However. you have to provide me with SOMETHING. To say, it is a spectrum merely, as I say, leaves me to hit a moving target. In any school of thought there will be variant on the central idea, but you at least have to start with the central idea. This I attempted to do.

[crmoore]

I'm not going to fault you for not reading it all. We all have our lives we need to get to, and I understand there is a lot written here. That being said, if you can't commit the time to read the response, then this conversation cannot sustain any sort of real productivity.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "the different strains of libertarianism." Yes, I asked about libertarianism as a whole, of which includes the entirety of that spectrum, not just one point on that spectrum (like you seem to regard it as). These "different strains" are all within "libertarianism." So when I ask about "libertarianism," those "different strains" are included. I may not have directly asked about the different strains, but by asking about libertarianism, I am inherently asking about anything it envelops, those different trains included. (I apologize for the painfully thorough explanation, I just wanted to make certain that was understood)

And when you say you used the generic definition, I understand the thought process behind that. I'd use what I believe to be the generic definition, too. The whole point of this conversation was what you believe the generic definition is, and why that perspective seems to be so prevalent. I'm not saying it's illogical to use what you believe to be the generic definition, I'm saying your perspective is founded on inaccurate representations of the ideology.

(Response continued below)

[crmoore]

And with all due respect, I can't believe I'm even addressing this pictures and words point, of yours. This is very silly. Firstly, they weren't a "substitute for words" and they WERE a "supplement to words." Each time I provided a link to a photo, I conveyed a relevant idea, often explicitly explaining the notion behind the photo itself. And quite frankly, I don't even agree with the idea that informative graphics can't be substitutions for words. I mean, are you telling me that you can't understand the following link without accompanying words? (https://external-content. duckduckgo. com/iu/? u=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs. sas. com%2Fcontent%2Fgraphicallyspeaking%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F08%2FPieChartRespGloss2. png&f=1&nofb=1 ). But even if we assume you're correct, what I did still falls in-line with what you claim is appropriate, as they supplemented words.

I'd consider myself to be a fairly emotionally tame individual. It takes a lot to get some sort of visual reaction out of me. But you've successfully done so by stating "no definition starts with if" regarding my statement "if libertarianism is defined as, and only regards, the belief in maximizing freedom and minimizing government, then wouldn't there not be a spectrum of libertarianism, considering you have to believe in only the maximization of freedom and minimization of government?"

Because the definition doesn't start with if, the SENTENCE that CONTAINS (not solely) YOUR definition started with if, not the definition itself. In that sentence, the definition would start with "the," that being "the belief in maximizing freedom and minimizing government."

(Response continued below)

[crmoore]

I mean, are you really telling me you thought when I addressed your definition it began with "if libertarianism is defined as"? What definition states the word it is defining, as well as the idea of defining it WITHIN the definition itself? I can't even begin to understand how your thought process came to that conclusion. I'm starting to get tired of correcting you. With all due respect, this is not something an adult should have to explain to another adult.

And you asked "so I ask again, if libertarianism is NOT the maximization of freedom and the minimization of government, tell me what it is." I'm not sure if you're asking because you didn't understand what I wrote in my last response, or if this falls under the portions that you admitted you didn't read. If it's the latter, you should suck it up and read the response because it is ridiculous to expect me to answer questions over and over again in the absence of any sort of refutation simply because you don't want to take the time to read the answers already provided.

So I will quote myself: "the extent in which you believe government should have control or influence on our lives or economy, leaning more towards less control/influence."

As for your comment "to repeat, no definition begins with IF." I repeat, the definition didn't begin with if."

As for your request for precepts, one might be: libertarians generally think that government should err on the side of caution, when considering implementing restrictions.

And Libertarianism is a spectrum, you can't define it any other way. And it is not impossible to discuss it, people do it ALL the time. You're the only person I have ever met that had difficulty doing so.

(Response continued below)

[crmoore]

And I'm not saying "no, you're wrong, liberation isn't X, it's Y." I'm saying "X falls under libertarianism at its extremity, but there is MUCH more than libertarianism than X." What you're arguing is akin to "well if I say pastries are cookies, and you say pastries are more than just cookies, then we can't discuss pastries because you aren't defining pastries in a way that explicitly regards a singular thing." When I am defining pastries, it's just a broad definition that envelops many different things. A pastry isn't a specific thing, it's a conglomerate of many similar things.

Again, if you'd just address the points I make, I think you'd have a better time understanding. For example, my comparison to conservatism and liberalism. You can probably give me a definition of conservative, but when you have someone that aligns with that definition in every single way except none, according to your logic, they're not a conservative. Because to you, it's not a spectrum, it's a well-defined, singular thing. But I'm almost certain you don't genuinely believe that. You know conservatism and liberalism is a spectrum, you know not everyone falls on the same point throughout that spectrum. You're just being weirdly stubborn and argumentative.

Regarding your "you have to provide me with SOMETHING." I did, I have, multiple times. You simply don't want to address or acknowledge them. You can see the 9th paragraph in this response for that. Please don't make me repeat myself again.

[nightdrot]

Sir, you go on and on and I don't see your point.

There is no way anyone can read your mind and know what it is you mean by libertarianism. I am no longer sure what you mean and I have a degree in political philosophy.

If you had something specific in mind, you should have defined it. G@G allows for supplements and follow ups. Candidly, your question appears to have been poorly written.

At any rate, at this point, I am asking you, if you wish to discuss libertarianism, forget all that has come before. Don't rehash the discussion over the charts - which I found silly and superfluous, (and I have seen them before) but of which I am sure I could not convince you of that in any case - don't try to thread the needle on my definition of libertarianism or trace its various strands.

Start from the beginning. DEFINE LIBERTARIANISM. Flat out. What does it mean? From there I will respond to your definition. Please be advised that I may argue the merits of libertarianism as you define it, OR I reserve the right to point out that your definition is NOT libertarianism, should that turn out to be the case. (Not unlike how Americans call classical liberals "conservatives." It is a local usage, perfectly acceptable, but it tends to obscure precise meaning and taxonomy. That is why American conservatives are often surprised by the consequences of their own policies. Ditto, American liberals.)

Anyhow, what I am offering to you - at this point - is a chance to wipe the slate clean and start the discussion from scratch. Be concise and specific. As it is now, you have so muddied matters with your charts and talk of a spectrum of views and all the rest, I am not at all clear about what it is you are talking about - despite that you call it libertarianism.

So, to repeat, write nothing other than a specific definition of libertarianism. You may include what nuances you like, but limit yourself to your understanding of the philosophy and its origins.

[crmoore]

This is incredible. I have much more to say but I'll forgo them, per your request.

For the third time, here is your definition: Libertarianism is a belief regarding what extent government should have control or influence over our lives or the economy, ranging from no governmental control to moderate governmental control.

[nightdrot]

Sorry, and for the third time, that is not a definition. That it is a belief about the extent of government control is obvious enough. However, it is more specific than that.

Out of curiosity, by your definition - how is it different from what Americans call conservative. That too is a "belief regarding what extent government should have control or influence over our lives or the economy, ranging from no governmental control to moderate governmental control."

As I said before, you have offered a definition that does not define anything in particular.

For comparison, here is a definition of classical conservatism - "To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to Utopian bliss. Familiar relationships and loyalties will be preferred to the allure of more profitable attachments; to acquire and to enlarge will be less important than to keep, to cultivate and to enjoy; the grief of loss will be more acute than the excitement of novelty or promise. It is to be equal to one's own fortune, to live at the level of one's own means, to be content with the want of greater perfection which belongs alike to oneself and one's circumstances."

So, provide me a definition of libertarianism of similar structure and depth. As it is, you offered only a banality.

[Leavesbound]

I am a civil libertarian meaning I believe in civil liberties which is often considered a related political belief. I think the philosophy that is held by people who call themselves libertarians don't actually match the traditional definition of the word. Today, when you ask such a person what they believe in, in the end it often sounds like they are describing fascism. "you can believe anything you want to as long as it's the same as I believe." is what it often boils down to. But this also seems to apply to other political philosophies. I believe in self reliance tempered with the understanding that some people really do need to be taken care of due to the fact that they cannot do it for themselves and we as a society as a whole are morally obligated to help those in need. I recognize that not enough individuals are willing to step up to meet the need so government is therefore obligated to do it for them. But I also believe that government should not intrude upon the private lives of citizens any more than absolutely necessary and not at all if possible. The ninth amendment is the most ignored of the bill of rights and the least understood. It grants people rights not specified but traditionally accepted and that includes many that courts have decided are not valid. I believe that we don't need to be the world's police. We have tried this and most of the time it ends in disaster. The middle east is a prime example. There was absolutely no valid reason for us to invade Iraq after 9-11. Doing so created a power vacuum that left many populations vulnerable to destruction and paved the way to extremists harming a lot of people just as bad as the dictator that preceded. But then we interfered years before resulting in that dictator being propped up in the first place. 9-11 happened because we we interfered in Afghanistan years before when the Russians were fighting there. Had we not interfered 9-11 would never have happened. We all but created the nation of Israel and supported that nations bad behavior towards the native population and then are shocked when we are the target of terrorists. Our paranoid fear of communism resulted in 50,000 Americans dead in Vietnam. We had no business going there. Vietnam is fine today. They have a different political philosophy than we do but they are generally a happy and better off people than they were 45 years ago. Communism didn't spread to the rest of the world and in fact it is less prevalent today than the day we fled Vietnam. So losing that war didn't result in an increase of communism. In fact there are very few countries today that are communist. Even communist China is no longer communist.

[IronLady6354]

I have pretty libertarian beliefs, so I'd say I like it. There are a couple of things I disagree with them on here or there, but I'd say I'm probably 70%-80% libertarian

[AmandaYVR]

I don't want to get into a heavy political conversation right now, but just wanted to post this. I think it's funny, and rings pretty true.

[GnatSocks]

I used to be libertarian. This is what made me change: the press is private, but controls the population by being the ones who distribute information. Challenges to this are devalued (fake news) because, again, the press controls the information. Libertarians say, "oh well, nothing we can do. The free market is free." Corporations are not your friend. A road fee is no different from a tax, and micro transactions are the ideal libertarian future. That's merely the practical side.

Ideologically, I imagine this: who is more free, the man controlled by heroin or the man who was never able to buy it? Who is more free, the man enslaved to usury or the man who never had endless debt as an option? Because at the end of the day, there are evil people, and Libertarian philosophy can't deal with evil, and when you apply it to true evil in the world, like drag queen sorry hour, you get impotence. Most libertarians became libertarians because they wanted an ideological framework to explain what is or is not evil. However, they get stuck on these problems, until they finally realize their way of thinking is wrong. Most then realize that they had been tricked by the press and National Socialism (also, NatSoc... GnatSocks) was what they had been looking for all along.

[Orangeandturquoise]

Well finally someone asking the right questions regarding ideology.

So I'd say that Chomsky's video under @Ad_Quid_Orator 's opinion, sums it up quite well. Chomsky is really one of the greats in philosophy/social sciences.

I guess what I'd add, however, is that I am more interested in becoming enlightened. And I'm not saying that Enlightenment is something up there on a pedestal and something that is "supernatural" or "outwordly". Enlightenment requires that there is a reconciliation between ideologies. This is due to the unifying and inclusive nature of being enlightened.

The definition of enlightenment I take is Ken Wilber's, which is that you become one and united with everything and everyone, yet still keep your functional-social-personal-individual awareness. Ken Wilber's integral psychology of development (growing up) is closely connected to the enlightenment process (waking up). So the further up the development latter you are (which doesn't mean "better", just more inclusive, more aware), the higher the experience will be of waking up.

In order to keep both paths in sync so to speak, libertarianism (the real kind, not the wishy-washy nonsense the US advocates for) could be considered a very high quality ideology all in all, cause it combines the economic control (or lack thereof, where private ownership is abolished, depending on if you see it from the positive or negative freedom perspective) of communism, and the individuality that communism ignores.

Basically, real libertarianism is the best of the two worlds and is basically what Oscar Wilde advocated for. In his essay called "The Soul of Man Under Socialism" Wilde argues at the very end, that what socialism is missing, is individuality.

Note: Individuality is NOT the same as individualism.

[Orangeandturquoise]

I forgot to add: the other reason I would advocate for real libertarianism is because it takes away the structural hierarchy but keeps the hierarchy of growth. :)

[invalid1]

I am not even an American, but I am a huge fan for Mr. Ron Paul intellectually. I may call him a theorist to this ideology, as long as it is tolerant!!!

Because I have a take on the idea of "as little government as possible", because I notice this in human society, the more absent or the less the government is, the more and more humans will deepen classism between themselves, and then you will start seeing a spontaneous slavery forming within the human society or even slave trade no matter how rich or poor. The best thing you will have is slave labor, that's the best outcome.

But oh yeah, if the government is not there for human rights, it is actually not a government therefore libertarianism will be so valid and actually needed.

I think America needs libertarianism, especially with those two dominant parties that are mostly authoritarian, it rationalises the spectrum.

[genericname85]

i guess libertarianism in it's extreme form would be anarchy. that's the flaw of that ideology in my opinion. there has to be a certain level of governmental control, to keep people in check, cause if unchecked, people are not naturally able to live with each other. you see that in the small, how neigbours hate on each other... like not even people litterally living next door to each other are able to handle each other and of course this translates into the makro dimension. so if this is left unchecke, people will be completely unhinged. that's why we have government and the law. of course government itself can go Haywire too, which is why we can not have any pure form of ideology. neither libertarianism nor authoritarianism. currently we are on the very far authoritarian side pretty much globally.

[MasterOfReality]

I think it is the most true to form ideology and intentions of the founders. And then exactly what they warned everyone about has happened over time- a tyrannical overbearing government run by elitist who use their positions to enrich themselves and their families and exert control over the masses.

[Kaneki05]

Probably a good thing, seems like an ideology that serves to keep on not needed government controlled things. But it has many flaws which comes in the form everyone is subjective and have tons of different opinions on what these are or not so it's not really ever gonna be full proof. But tbf that's basically anything political. So not really sure other than i don't just right off the bat dislike it.

[slatyb]

If you are talking about Ayn Rand-ian libertarianism, it's just naive. It's based on the idea that there are infinite raw materials available for the taking, and an infinite sink for unwanted by-products (industrial waste). That has never been true.

A modern society with no form of social insurance is both cruel and unproductive.

[superQ]

I think government has some responsibility and function for it's citizens. There's also the fact that if drugs are 100% legalized, then some will have harsh effects that are hard to control even armed citizens or police forces can't stop. There will be some sense of social disorder. Other than that, Libertarianism is pretty cool.

[andreasderjuengere]

Liberty means freedom. It ranks (almost) highest on my list.
But to work smoothly, it needs to be paired with responsibility and intelligence; that's why it is a troublesome thing; the majority of people simply is unable to USE this 'freedom' the right way.
I do not agree that it has to be in conjunction with socialism or communism.

[tartaarsaus]

Typically, economic views endorsed by libertarians tend to be rather stupid. For example, not having a central bank is an excellent way to fuck up your own economy, just like too little government intervention is a fantastic way to annihilate specific industries.

[SuccessfulHornDog]

I support libertarian principles. Both other parties have denigrating it by making specious claims as to what libertarians stand for. There are no two Libertarians who are exactly alike just like members of the Democrat and Republican parties don't usually agree with everything that their party stands for.

[TadCurious]

I particularly oppose the libertarian position/philosophy on immigration. Libertarians believe in open borders and I very much don't. They are also weak on national security which is related to the former.

[crmoore]

Those are rather extreme libetarian positions, though. Not representative of the average libertarian.

[TadCurious]

Well your question asked about the conceptual ideology, not about individuals who might call themselves libertarians but don't actually know what that conceptual ideology is.

[crmoore]

No ideology is defined by its most extreme usage/interpretation. That's like saying conservatives don't believe in any sort of welfare. I'm a Libertarian and I don't believe in open boarders, nor do I want weak national security.

[Abtraction]

I lean that way, I believe liberty should come before government. We have too many government agencies hindering liberty.

[007kingifrit]

its a little idealistic and unrealistic at its far end. less government is good in many cases, most actually. but not all cases

[Snakeyes7]

We want less government intervention but we cannot seem to agree amongst ourselves where there is too much government and too little government.

[Lyndsielee666]

I’m super libertarian based off a survey I took and I just don’t like and also oppose myself

[Massageman]

Not perfection, but it beats the stuffing out of socialism, communism, and progressivism (just a code word for the previous two).

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Its' Totalitarian nature:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/OgOa9UkCN-w

[Orangeandturquoise]

Chomsky for the win!

[bamesjond0069]

I theory sure but it could never work and its not practical.

[ItsMeItsMe1989]

Every party, has its problems. There is no one GOOD party