PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Myths and Truths about Libertarianism


BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 02:22 PM
"Libertarianism is the fastest growing political creed in America today. Before judging and evaluating libertarianism, it is vitally important to find out precisely what that doctrine is, and, more particularly, what it is not. It is especially important to clear up a number of misconceptions about libertarianism that are held by most people, and particularly by conservatives. In this essay I shall enumerate and critically analyze the most common myths that are held about libertarianism. When these are cleared away, people will then be able to discuss libertarianism free of egregious myths and misconceptions, and to deal with it as it should be on its very own merits or demerits." ~ Murray N. Rothbard. a founder of modern libertarianism


Just for starters (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard168.html)

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 02:23 PM
Murray Rothbard famously said we can tell a real libertarian, anarchist or minarchist, from other orientations by this test: do you hate the state? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html)

Beltway Libertarianism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/07/beltway-libertarianism/)

CrazyPhuD
01-30-2013, 02:44 PM
I don't hate the state but I do tend to think the only people we elect are sociopaths.....

But that's our fault as much as theirs.

listopencil
01-30-2013, 02:46 PM
Murray Rothbard famously said we can tell a real libertarian, anarchist or minarchist, from other orientations by this test: do you hate the state? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html)

Beltway Libertarianism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/07/beltway-libertarianism/)

I don't know if I would go so far as to say I hate the State. I have a begrudging, disrespectful acknowledgement of the necessity for it.

cosmo20002
01-30-2013, 02:56 PM
I don't know if I would go so far as to say I hate the State. I have a begrudging, disrespectful acknowledgement of the necessity for it.

I saw a story a couple weeks ago about the rise of proposals for planned "libertarian" communities. Glenn Beck was behind one of these proposed communities. I guess it would be some libertarian utopia where you could act as libertarian as you want. So, to ensure the libertarian-ness of the communities, there are all these rules and regulations so they can ensure the libertarian purity. :facepalm:

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 02:57 PM
I don't know if I would go so far as to say I hate the State. I have a begrudging, disrespectful acknowledgement of the necessity for it.

Yeah, but where do you draw the line on it, is the question? Because that statement is what paleo-conservatives believe too. A paleo is a limited govt person, but based on the Constitution. It supports local values of people. They just don't go as far as a libertarian. So there are libertarian centralizers who do like to use the state. Men like Randy Barnett and Roger Pilon.

Most of the guys over at Lew's are really true libertarians. The often mock who they consider false libertarians. That's why it says: "Anti-state, anti-war and pro-market." That is right libertarianism.

I couldn't find the other Rothbard article on it which I thought was better.

Chocolate Hog
01-30-2013, 03:00 PM
Murray Rothbard famously said we can tell a real libertarian, anarchist or minarchist, from other orientations by this test: do you hate the state? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html)

Beltway Libertarianism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/07/beltway-libertarianism/)

You probably hate Rothbard he supported Bush.

listopencil
01-30-2013, 03:03 PM
I saw a story a couple weeks ago about the rise of proposals for planned "libertarian" communities. Glenn Beck was behind one of these proposed communities. I guess it would be some libertarian utopia where you could act as libertarian as you want. So, to ensure the libertarian-ness of the communities, there are all these rules and regulations so they can ensure the libertarian purity. :facepalm:

ROFL

bandwagonjumper
01-30-2013, 03:03 PM
"Libertarianism is the fastest growing political creed in America today. Before judging and evaluating libertarianism, it is vitally important to find out precisely what that doctrine is, and, more particularly, what it is not. It is especially important to clear up a number of misconceptions about libertarianism that are held by most people, and particularly by conservatives. In this essay I shall enumerate and critically analyze the most common myths that are held about libertarianism. When these are cleared away, people will then be able to discuss libertarianism free of egregious myths and misconceptions, and to deal with it as it should be on its very own merits or demerits." ~ Murray N. Rothbard. a founder of modern libertarianism


Just for




starters (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard168.html)

Its funny but the first name to come mind when I hear libertarian is Marquis de Sade. For me libertarianism means absolute freedom and no interference by the state in your private behaviour. As Marquis de Sade showed it might be enjoyable for you but not so much for other people.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 03:08 PM
Its funny but the first name to come mind when I hear libertarian is Marquis de Sade. For me libertarianism means absolute freedom and no interference by the state in your private behaviour. As Marquis de Sade showed it might be enjoyable for you but not so much for other people.

Except that's where libertarians draw the line. The aggression doctrine is the fundamental basis that unites all types of libertarians. Since the state is aggressive force, because it relies on a gun to a person's head to comply or go to jail, they want as little as possible. So they feel that if they're not harming someone else directly, then there should be no govt interference. They consider these victimless crimes. It wouldn't be based on if it's enjoyable for other people though.

cosmo20002
01-30-2013, 03:08 PM
Yeah, but where do you draw the line on it, is the question? Because that statement is what paleo-conservatives believe too. A paleo is a limited govt person, but based on the Constitution. It supports local values of people. They just don't go as far as a libertarian. So there are libertarian centralizers who do like to use the state. Men like Randy Barnett and Roger Pilon.

Most of the guys over at Lew's are really true libertarians. The often mock who they consider false libertarians. That's why it says: "Anti-state, anti-war and pro-market." That is right libertarianism.

I couldn't find the other Rothbard article on it which I thought was better.

I can't even tell you the disappointment. I really can't.

But what a tease--get us all jacked up on Murray Rothbard--the FOUNDER of modern libertarianism--- and his "famous" quotes, and then you tell us there an even better article out there.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 03:09 PM
You probably hate Rothbard he supported Bush.

Link

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 03:09 PM
ROFL

Beck is continously mocked for calling himself a libertarian by the Rothbardians. He's a joke to them.

listopencil
01-30-2013, 03:10 PM
Yeah, but where do you draw the line on it, is the question?

I draw the line at only those things that are necessary for our society to function. That means that I'm not always going to get what I want. I am always going to think that the government is too intrusive, and I'm always going to think that the law is too overbearing.

listopencil
01-30-2013, 03:12 PM
Beck is continously mocked for calling himself a libertarian by the Rothbardians. He's a joke to them.

Well, to be honest, I think Glenn Beck could be considered a joke by anyone.

siberian khatru
01-30-2013, 03:14 PM
Old joke: When two libertarians find themselves agreeing on something, each knows the other has sold out.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 03:14 PM
I draw the line at only those things that are necessary for our society to function. That means that I'm not always going to get what I want. I am always going to think that the government is too intrusive, and I'm always going to think that the law is too overbearing.

Well, that wouldn't be their line. No one agrees on that line. Libertarians believe in courts for enforcing contracts, govt prosecuting fraud and protection of life. I know at least that. Some will support civil rights and could still be considered libertarian enough, but some don't. Some are pro-life; some pro-choice and I think either of those can fit into the tent because that comes down to whether or not you believe it's another human life/person who has a right to be free from being harmed in an act of aggression.

Oh, and one does not have to believe in Austrian Economics either. There are conservatives that do. In fact I was turned onto it by a man from the religious right. But it fits into that ideology well enough.

cosmo20002
01-30-2013, 03:16 PM
Except that's where libertarians draw the line. The aggression doctrine is the fundamental basis that unites all types of libertarians. Since the state is aggressive force, because it relies on a gun to a person's head to comply or go to jail, they want as little as possible. So they feel that if they're not harming someone else directly, then there should be no govt interference. It wouldn't be based on if it's enjoyable for other people.

Yeah, they are the judge on whether it is harming someone else. You may not have noticed this (especially you), but a lot of people are self-absorbed jerks. They don't realize their impacts on others. And if they do, they often don't care. That's why libertarianism always sounds good, but is impractical because people are...people.

CrazyPhuD
01-30-2013, 03:17 PM
#1 Myth about libertarianism is that is has been defined.

cosmo20002
01-30-2013, 03:17 PM
Beck is continously mocked for calling himself a libertarian by the Rothbardians. He's a joke to them.

:facepalm:

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 03:20 PM
#1 Myth about libertarianism is that is has been defined.

No that's not a myth. It can be defined but it has different kinds. It's a big tent. It has to be if you believe in a mini-anarchy. ( another word for it ). Because it allows for the development of communities who band together based on what their own values. They're united by the non-aggression doctrine and it is a thought out philosophy.


For instance there is left-libertarianism....which is mini-anarchy which is essentially a communitarian idea. Much like communism.

listopencil
01-30-2013, 03:21 PM
Well, that wouldn't be their line. No one agrees on that line. Libertarians believe in courts for enforcing contracts, govt prosecuting fraud and protection of life. Some will support civil rights and could still be considered libertarian enough, but some don't. Some are pro-life; some pro-choice and I think either of those can fit into the tent because that comes down to whether or not you believe it's another human life/person who has a right to be free from being harmed in an act of aggression.

Necessary for a society to function. Our society functions when every citizen believes in a set of fair laws that are enforced with equality. Civil rights are a pretty easy call for me: Always fall on the side of the line that favors the individual. And to quote the Libertarian Party platform of 2012:

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
http://www.lp.org/platform

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 03:27 PM
Necessary for a society to function. Our society functions when every citizen believes in a set of fair laws that are enforced with equality. Civil rights are a pretty easy call for me: Always fall on the side of the line that favors the individual. And to quote the Libertarian Party platform of 2012:

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
http://www.lp.org/platform

That depends on if you think it's an act of aggression because there are many that don't support that part of the platform. That's just a platform for the "party." Many Rothbardians left the official libertarian party. Libertariania heavily favors the individual, true, but that applies to the person in the womb too. Because it's the non-aggression doctrine that unites all the different kinds.

I can accept someone thinking they're still a libertarian, even if they support civil rights, but I don't think that stand on it's own is libertarian. It's a break. I think if the person is libertarian on 95% they still are. From there, it would be declining away from it.

However, I think civil rights, breaks with it because it forces other individuals such as private business owners to do something or be punished by the state. Now, if it's the state doing it, such as public buses then I would agree it's liberatarian to oppose such limits on any person.

listopencil
01-30-2013, 03:27 PM
Yeah, they are the judge on whether it is harming someone else. You may not have noticed this (especially you), but a lot of people are self-absorbed jerks. They don't realize their impacts on others. And if they do, they often don't care. That's why libertarianism always sounds good, but is impractical because people are...people.

Well, that's why you do end up with a set of laws to protect individuals.

La literatura
01-30-2013, 03:29 PM
Get a job.

listopencil
01-30-2013, 03:30 PM
That depends on if you think it's an act of aggression because there are many that don't support that part of the platform. That's just a platform for the "party." Many Rothbardians left the official libertarian party. It's heavily favors the individual, true, but that applies to the person in the womb too.

I can accept someone thinking their still a libertarian, even if they support civil rights, but I don't think that stand on it's own is libertarian. It's a break. I think if the person is libertarian on 95% they still are. However, I think civil rights, breaks with it because it forces other individuals such as private business owners to do something or be punished by the state. Now, if it's the state doing it, such as public buses then I would agree it's liberatarian.

Well the problem with that (the civil rights part) is that discriminatory practices were actually written into law.

La literatura
01-30-2013, 03:34 PM
That depends on if you think it's an act of aggression because there are many that don't support that part of the platform. That's just a platform for the "party." Many Rothbardians left the official libertarian party. Libertariania heavily favors the individual, true, but that applies to the person in the womb too. Because it's the non-aggression doctrine that unites all the different kinds.

I can accept someone thinking they're still a libertarian, even if they support civil rights, but I don't think that stand on it's own is libertarian. It's a break. I think if the person is libertarian on 95% they still are. From there, it would be declining away from it.

However, I think civil rights, breaks with it because it forces other individuals such as private business owners to do something or be punished by the state. Now, if it's the state doing it, such as public buses then I would agree it's liberatarian to oppose such limits on any person.

I can't believe you think these arbitrary percentages that exist in your mind are meaningful to anyone. It's also nonsense: in your scheme, a person who is "96% libertarian" has not declined away from libertarianism whereas the "94% libertarian" has, even though both are less from 100% libertarianism?

This country isn't libertarian. It's not a theoretical model, and it doesn't exist in a historiless vacuum. It's a living, breathing, evolving mass of people confined to a particularly enlightened skeleton of government.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 03:36 PM
Well the problem with that (the civil rights part) is that discriminatory practices were actually written into law.

Yes I know. Making blacks sit at the back of a bus was wrong because it was done by the state.
Forcing businesses, who did not want to segregate it's lunch counters for instance, was forced by state law. But for those private businesses that did not want to integrate, they shouldn't be forced to. They'll lose business or not be as successful as those that do.

La literatura
01-30-2013, 03:40 PM
But for those private businesses that did not want to integrate, they shouldn't be forced to. They'll lose business or not be as successful as those that do.

You don't know that one bit. You only approach this historical problem with the mindset of an American living in 2013 where blacks and whites do sit next to each other in restaurants.

Some things are against public policy because they are inherently wrong and evil, and invidious discrimination based on racial differences is rightfully considered one of them. And we don't sit around and wait for it to solve itself. We take a stand against it immediately.

BigChiefTablet
01-30-2013, 03:41 PM
Congratulations BucEyedPea, you have determined that not everyone pigeonholed into a nice, neat political label actually shares exactly the same ideology on every issue. Alert the media.

listopencil
01-30-2013, 03:51 PM
Yes I know. Making blacks sit at the back of a bus was wrong because it was done by the state.
Forcing businesses, who did not want to segregate it's lunch counters for instance, was forced by state law. But for those private businesses that did not want to integrate, they shouldn't be forced to. They'll lose business or not be as successful as those that do.

That's a good start, but that's not everything. We've had a society that was incredibly fractured along "race" and gender lines. Institutionalized bigotry. The decision was made to enforce "civil rights" issues to clear away the inherent inequalities that were built into our system of government, a government with intimate ties to large and small business. Along the way we've had to deal with mob mentality and oppression by the majority. That's why I support civil rights.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 03:51 PM
Congratulations BucEyedPea, you have determined that not everyone pigeonholed into a nice, neat political label actually shares exactly the same ideology on every issue. Alert the media.

I never thought everyone was pigeonholed into a nice, neat political label was pure.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 03:52 PM
That's a good start, but that's not everything. We've had a society that was incredibly fractured along "race" and gender lines. Institutionalized bigotry. The decision was made to enforce "civil rights" issues to clear away the inherent inequalities that were built into our system of government, a government with intimate ties to large and small business. Along the way we've had to deal with mob mentality and oppression by the majority. That's why I support civil rights.

So where do you stand on property rights then? Because such "rights" you claim here show a conflict of rights with that. Property rights are a fundamental right in the Constitution.

listopencil
01-30-2013, 04:02 PM
So where do you stand on property rights then? Because such "rights" you claim here show a conflict of rights with that. Property rights are a fundamental right in the Constitution.

It goes back to "necessary for a society to function."

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 05:58 PM
It goes back to "necessary for a society to function."

No, that's too vague.

Prison Bitch
01-30-2013, 06:06 PM
It's amazing the Left has now co-opted the Libertarian position given that they love the welfare state and big govt (wasteful) programs. People seem to like freedom over gay marriage and abortion over freedom of their pocketbooks. Weird.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 06:17 PM
It's amazing the Left has now co-opted the Libertarian position given that they love the welfare state and big govt (wasteful) programs. People seem to like freedom over gay marriage and abortion over freedom of their pocketbooks. Weird.

I was just reading over at Lew's that the Left is attacking libertarianism—they're afraid of it.
Then, there's the left libertarians who are anarcho-socialists.

Prison Bitch
01-30-2013, 06:19 PM
I was just reading over at Lew's that the Left is attacking libertarianism—they're afraid of it.
Then, there's the left libertarians who are anarcho-socialists.

The Left hates libertarianism but they have successfully marketed themselves as the "freedom" party on the social issues. Their voters say "The GOP wants government out of your wallet but in your bedroom!" and the public seems to buy that bogus logic.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 06:33 PM
Big Government Libertarians
by Murray Rothbards in 1994
Still true today.

Not all of us however are familiar with an allied and far more oxymoronic development: the acceleration and takeover in the last few years by Big Government Libertarians, who now almost exclusively dominate the libertarian movement. The weird thing about Big Government Libertarianism, of course, is that it clearly violates the very nature and point of libertarianism: devotion to the ideal of either no government at all or government that is minuscule and strictly confined to defense of person and property: to what the ex-libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick called "ultra-minimal" government, or what the great paleolibertarian writer H.L. Mencken called "government that barely escapes being no government at all." How extensive has been this development, and how in the world could such a thing happen?

Murray goes to to break this development down....starting with the institutions the movement created:

Big Government Libertarianism now permeates and dominates what, in analogy with conservatives, may be called the Official Libertarian movement...

The fascinating point is that virtually all of these movement institutions, from the think-tanks to the magazines to the once purist Libertarian Party have, in the last few years, moved at remarkable speed to abandon any shred of their original principles: devotion to minimizing government or defending the rights of private property.

And indeed, the libertarian movement has always been almost willfully ignorant of any history or any aspect of foreign affairs. Arcane syllogisms of libertarian theory, science fiction, rock music, and the intricacies of computers, have been the sum and substance of their knowledge and their interest.

Part of this grandiose separatism, which I did not fully realize at the time, stemmed from an intense hatred of the right-wing, from libertarian anxiety never to be connected with or labeled as a conservative or a right-wing movement. And part of that hatred has come from a broader and even more intense hatred of Christianity, some of which was taken over from Ayn Rand.[ I have definitely observed this in some self-professed libertarians and even some Randites.]

To be specific, one important aspect of the recent shift toward statism and Big Government consists of a spill-over, of an infection, of libertarians' political views by their deep-seated egalitarianism. Scratch an egalitarian, and you will inevitably find a statist. How does the libertarians' burgeoning and pervasive egalitarianism square with their supposed belief in individualism, and for allowing every person to rise by his own merit unhobbled by government? The resolution of this problem is much the same as other, more common versions of Political Correctness.

Libertarians are fervently committed to the notion that, while each individual might not be "equal" to every other, that every conceivable group, ethnic contingent, race, gender, or, in some cases, species, are in fact and must be made "equal," that each one has "rights" that must not be subject to curtailment by any form of "discrimination."

And so, flying in the face of their former supposed devotion to the absolute rights of private property, the libertarian movement has embraced almost every phony and left-wing "right" that has been manufactured in recent decades.

Shortly before I left the libertarian movement and Party five years ago, a decision which I not only have never regretted but am almost continually joyous about, I told two well-known leaders of the movement that I thought it had become infected with and permeated by egalitarianism. What? they said. Impossible. There are no egalitarians in the movement. Further, I said that a good indication of this infection was a new-found admiration for the Reverend "Doctor" Martin Luther King. Absurd, they said. Well, interestingly enough, six months later, both of these gentlemen published articles hailing "Dr." King as a "great libertarian." To call this socialist, egalitarian, coercive integrationist, and vicious opponent of private-property rights, a someone who, to boot, was long under close Communist Party control, to call that person a "great libertarian," is only one clear signal of how far the movement has decayed.


Civil Rights or Property Rights
Throughout the Official Libertarian Movement, "civil rights" has been embraced without question, completely overriding the genuine rights of private property. In some cases, the embrace of a "right not to be discriminated against" has been explicit. In others, when libertarians want to square their new-found views, with their older principles and have no aversion to sophistry and even absurdity, they take the sneakier path blazed by the American Civil Liberties Union: that if there should be so much as a smidgen of government involved, whether it be use of the public streets or a bit of taxpayer funding, then the so-called "right" of "equal access" must override either private property or indeed any sort of good sense.

The increasing egalitarianism, which leads to increasing statism among those calling themselves libertarians actually stems from elites in the Beltway and is really fruit that has fallen far from the tree. It's a co-opted movement.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch16.html


With this I've got to go. I may peek in later.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 06:44 PM
The Left hates libertarianism but they have successfully marketed themselves as the "freedom" party on the social issues. Their voters say "The GOP wants government out of your wallet but in your bedroom!" and the public seems to buy that bogus logic.

Okay I can see that. The way I sort the wheat from the chaff, is by looking at the arguments they use for such issues. If they use egalitarianism, then they're really endorsing Cultural Marxism. This is not the same basis that a real libertarian would use, which would be minimalist govt for liberty. The cultural Marxist argument really is a trap.

I have an actual Marxist correct me once, claiming that Marx was really about a social revolution—not as much an economic one. Or shall I say a social end. The economics he espoused was a way to get there. I went and checked this out, because I didn't believe him, but he was right. Marx was all about "free love" doing away with the bourgeois aka the traditional family. Taboos must be broken down and replaced. No sub-groups like the family or smaller govts within a larger one, instead centralizing power. The family is the smallest governing unit of society. Break that up, more will become dependent on the state. So therefore, everyone is the same, one interchangeable part for another—egalitarianism. Libertarianism allows for many different communities and groups free from govt. Many would still have their own rules and standards. The ones that don't survive well, would be the ones who adopted dissolute practices.

listopencil
01-30-2013, 06:46 PM
No, that's too vague.

Not really. There is great discussion in Austin Chief's smoking ban thread on this very subject.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 06:49 PM
Not really. There is great discussion in Austin Chief's smoking ban thread on this very subject.

Well then, it's too vague for me when it's coming from a libertarian. I saw most of the smoking thread.

listopencil
01-30-2013, 06:54 PM
Well then, it's too vague for me when it's coming from a libertarian. I saw most of the smoking thread.

It's pretty simple. Your property rights don't outweigh the rights of others. Nor do they allow you to engage in practices that have a substantial negative effect on other individuals, or society in general.

La literatura
01-30-2013, 07:08 PM
It's pretty simple. Your property rights don't outweigh the rights of others. Nor do they allow you to engage in practices that have a substantial negative effect on other individuals, or society in general.

"Substantial negative effect" = too vague! Also, there's no such thing as society. /BEP

notorious
01-30-2013, 07:16 PM
Take a test and find out if you are a good Libertarian:

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi


I was in the middle ground. Scored 72.

La literatura
01-30-2013, 07:21 PM
Take a test and find out if you are a good Libertarian:

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi


I was in the middle ground. Scored 72.

18

16-30 points: You are a soft-core libertarian. With effort, you may harden and become pure.

I long for purity! Help me Lord Rothbard!

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 07:32 PM
Take a test and find out if you are a good Libertarian:

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi


I was in the middle ground. Scored 72.

Two things I see right off the bat—they have a picture of Ayn Rand who was not a libertarian, spoke out against them and hated them and Milton Friedman who believes in central banking and moderate Keynesianism, both of which violate essentials of libertarians and is statism. The Rothbardians mock Friedman as a libertarian, even if he hold to some libertarian views. They respect him on some things though. That's why questions on many of these on line tests are flawed or not specific enough. Case in point are voucher question. That's big govt libertarianism. Actually it's considered conservative. I'd say a score of 72 is someone who leans libertarian without being one. There are self-proclaimed conservatives come up in that range.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 07:37 PM
BTW Rand was an Objectivist. However, many libertarians started out becoming one from her due to her books, particularly Atlas Shrugged.

La literatura
01-30-2013, 07:37 PM
BEP, you're so knowledgeable! You use big words and talk about philosophies of famous people! You must be a doctorate of something.

cosmo20002
01-30-2013, 08:11 PM
BEP, you're so knowledgeable! You use big words and talk about philosophies of famous people! You must be a doctorate of something.

Do not mock Rothbardians. Rothbardians!

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 08:12 PM
This thread is for libertarians—not micro-managing Progs. Now beat it. You are the least knowledgeable about what libertarianism is.

listopencil
01-30-2013, 08:13 PM
Two things I see right off the bat—they have a picture of Ayn Rand who was not a libertarian, spoke out against them and hated them and Milton Friedman who believes in central banking and moderate Keynesianism, both of which violate essentials of libertarians and is statism. The Rothbardians mock Friedman as a libertarian, even if he hold to some libertarian views. They respect him on some things though. That's why questions on many of these on line tests are flawed or not specific enough. Case in point are voucher question. That's big govt libertarianism. Actually it's considered conservative. I'd say a score of 72 is someone who leans libertarian without being one. There are self-proclaimed conservatives come up in that range.

Atlas Shrugged is a fun and interesting exercise in practical philosophy from a romantic standpoint. I wouldn't use it as my Bible and I'm disappointed when others do. I do find these Libertarian purity tests amusing.

La literatura
01-30-2013, 08:14 PM
This thread is for libertarians—not micro-managing Progs. Now beat it. You are the least knowledgeable about what libertarianism is.

Did you say something?

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 08:16 PM
Atlas Shrugged is a fun and interesting exercise in practical philosophy from a romantic standpoint. I wouldn't use it as my Bible and I'm disappointed when others do. I do find these Libertarian purity tests amusing.

I don't consider them purity tests. I think it's a point of knowledge, integrity and mis-labeling. I think many lean that way, but miss the essential heart of it. The philosophy is actually about how much state one feels is needed. So I agree that Friedman had libertarian leanings but was not really one. Keynesianism, mild or excessive, just is contrary to it.

Anyhow, Ayn Rand was not a libertarian and didn't like them. She called herself an Objectivist—which is just another small govt philosophy.

listopencil
01-30-2013, 08:18 PM
I don't consider them purity tests. I think it's a point of integrity and mis-labeling. I think many lean that way, but miss the essential heart of it. The philosophy is actually about how much state one feels is needed.

Anyhow, Ayn Rand was not a libertarian and didn't like them. She called herself an Objectivist—which is just another small govt philosophy.

I am not really overly concerned with labels.

cosmo20002
01-30-2013, 08:19 PM
This thread is for libertarians—not micro-managing Progs. Now beat it. You are the least knowledgeable about what libertarianism is.

You're not a libertarian, remember? And, a libertarian, or even a paleoconservative or paleozoic anarchist or a mesozoic traditionalist wouldn't restrict certain people from an open forum.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 08:21 PM
I am not really overly concerned with labels.

That's the thing though, it's not really about labels though is it? Not when you really examine it.
It's about how much state one believes in. If they support mini-anarchy then that just happens to be libertarian. I don't care what one wants to call it. It's just that when one uses a name for something it should communicate what that belief represents essentially. It's actually a point of logic to define terms for categories as a form of shorthand.

This reminds me of patteeu's fiscal conservativism thread. People love how it sounds or is chic, like libertarianism currently.

So you think Rand belonged in that test, when she denied being one and hated them? That's what I call putting in cubes into a group of triangles.

listopencil
01-30-2013, 08:24 PM
That's the thing though, it's not really about labels though is it? Not when you really examine it.
It's about how much state one believes in. If they support mini-anarchy then that just happens to be libertarian. I don't care what one wants to call it. It's just that when one uses a name for something it should communicate what that belief represents essentially.

Well, I am for the smallest possible State that still allows a functioning society. On every issue I lean towards individual empowerment with the exception that you aren't allowed to affect others (or society in general) in a substantially negative way.

La literatura
01-30-2013, 08:28 PM
So you think Rand belonged in that test, when she denied being one and hated them? That's what I call putting in cubes into a group of triangles.

Only a couple of posts ago you had a sliding scale which determined that a 94% libertarian was 'declining from libertarianism' and now you are married to a cube/triangle category.

You're confused. It's okay. No one really looks to you for guidance about this kind of stuff.

listopencil
01-30-2013, 08:37 PM
So you think Rand belonged in that test, when she denied being one and hated them? That's what I call putting in cubes into a group of triangles.

No, I didn't claim that Rand was/is a Libertarian. She applied a lot of labels to herself, and tended to overthink things a bit, sometimes getting tripped up in her own short sightedness. I think that arguments over what a "Libertarian" is are by their very nature somewhat unproductive. In a purely political sense the argument is no more productive then trying to determine what a Republican or Democrat is.

notorious
01-30-2013, 08:49 PM
LMAO

The link was to a fun test I found on a quick search. Don't take it seriously.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 08:53 PM
LMAO

The link was to a fun test I found on a quick search. Don't take it seriously.

I know those tests online are just for fun. I just wanted to point out those things because they were glaring mis-fits. ( as well as vouchers )

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 08:57 PM
No, I didn't claim that Rand was/is a Libertarian. She applied a lot of labels to herself,

A lot? I only know of one—Objectivist, because that's actually a philosophy she developed.

May I ask what these many labels were?

...and tended to overthink things a bit, sometimes getting tripped up in her own short sightedness. I think that arguments over what a "Libertarian" is are by their very nature somewhat unproductive. In a purely political sense the argument is no more productive then trying to determine what a Republican or Democrat is.

I think that applies to R and D more than libertarian. I mean libertarian is a philosophy. However, if it's unproductive, why discuss it at all?

What I have more of an issue with, is people not really familiarizing themselves with something enough to really know what it stands for, especially not knowing the founders of it, and labeling themselves incorrectly. It's political illiteracy.

La literatura
01-30-2013, 09:00 PM
A lot? I only know of one—Objectivist, because that's actually a philosophy she developed.





I think that applies to R and D more than libertarian. I mean libertarian is a philosophy. However, if it's unproductive, why discuss it at all?

What I have more of an issue with, is people not really familiarizing themselves with something enough to really know what it stands for, especially not knowing the founders of it, and labeling themselves incorrectly. It's political illiteracy.

I have a problem with people whose worldview is written up for them in stone by columnists on lewrockwell.com.

Taco John
01-30-2013, 09:17 PM
I hate libertarians because they don't fit into my idea of what a libertarian should be.

/every leftist I know

Taco John
01-30-2013, 09:18 PM
I have a problem with people whose worldview is written up for them in stone by columnists on lewrockwell.com.

As opposed to The New York Times?

listopencil
01-30-2013, 09:19 PM
A lot? I only know of one—Objectivist, because that's actually a philosophy she developed.

May I ask what these many labels were?

She self identified as a capitalist, an egoist, an objectivist and a romantic off the top of my head.



I think that applies to R and D more than libertarian. I mean libertarian is a philosophy. However, if it's unproductive, why discuss it at all?

What I have more of an issue with, is people not really familiarizing themselves with something enough to really know what it stands for, especially not knowing the founders of it, and labeling themselves incorrectly. It's political illiteracy.The concept of Libertarianism is broad enough that it is worthwhile to discuss in some situations yet almost pointless in others.

La literatura
01-30-2013, 09:25 PM
As opposed to The New York Times?

Now there's a good forum.

Taco John
01-30-2013, 11:07 PM
http://i.imgur.com/GEBcrmO.jpg