View Full Version : What exactly is Libertarian Polosophy?

10-05-2000, 12:14 PM
Sorry, I meant "philosophy"

I heard an interview with Harry Brown. He seemed very genuine, intelligent, and had several Ideas that I agree with. I don't want to waste a vote on him...but was intrigued.

can someone discuss briefly the main philosophy and where it stands vs dem or rep?

[This message has been edited by Iowanian (edited 10-05-2000).]

10-05-2000, 12:16 PM
Do whatever you like! It's a free country, and you have the right!

Give TRich the Ball!!!</B>

10-05-2000, 12:17 PM
gaz knows...

10-05-2000, 12:26 PM
Oregon Chief

I think Gaz could give you a better definition but I take a cliff notes crack at it.
Libertarians strongly believe in self-determination and self-responsibility. Generally speaking they think the Government should stay out of our lives and let us make our own decisions. They do not believe in so called victimless crimes. These could include prostitution, seat belt laws drug laws etc. This is an over simplification but that is the general idea. They have several wed sites that will explain their views in more detail.

Rod a Libertarian in Republican clothing. <BR>

10-05-2000, 12:34 PM

For one, I'd say that both the rep and dem parties lack any sort of governing philosophy or idealogy. Setting that aside I can draw you a basic road map of libertarianism. In general, Libertarians believe less government is better and we should have a minimalist government.

I've always found it easy to use a quadrant approach, although contradictions to this exist. Along one axis you have social control, and on another you'd have economic control. So, a 'conservative' would likely want strong social control (i.e. it's illegal to cuss in public, be nude, drink in public, engage in homosexual practices, use drugs, etc.), but would like low economis control (let companies do what they want, have a free and unregulated market). 'Liberals' could be generally lumped into the opposite spectrum of wanting high economic control and low social control from the government. In this view, Libertarians would be in the low, low quadrant. In the high, high you'd put you basic totalitarian systems such as communism, dictatorships, etc.

My understanding is that on the extreme some libertarians want just an army and a judicial system from a government. Everything else is superflous in their opinion.

10-05-2000, 12:44 PM
Jones - I disagree with your defs of Rep's and Dem's. I think both are trying to forward their morals on us, while the Libertarian's don't care as long as you don't hurt someone else.

10-05-2000, 12:45 PM

That seems to be a good way to see the platform. thanks,

So from what I understand, Libertarians think I should be able to run my business, be responsible for its success/failure, smoke dope with a prostitute on the courthouse steps while spanking a kid for cursing in public...?

IE making drugs, prostitution, etc...legal and taking pressure from the courts/jails by making free will issues legal?

It makes sense, but I don't know if I aggree with all of that if true. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

Thanks to all for the enlightenment.

10-05-2000, 12:49 PM

Excellent summation.

Libertarians assume that John Q Public is smart enough and moral enough to make his own decisions without interference from the government. Libertarians also require that John Q Public take responsibility for his own mess when his smarts and morals fall short of this assumption.

Less Federal government, a return to states rights, personal responsibility.

As has been pointed out, there are many Libertarian web sites for those who want more information. You should also be aware that there are almost as many definitions of Libertarian as there are Libertarians. It is an unavoidable consequence of the individualistic nature of the Libertarian viewpoint.

poised and ready to make his own mistakes.<BR>

10-05-2000, 12:52 PM

My standard for crime is: show me the victim. If you cannot show me where someone is hurt [physically or financially] by an action, then you should not call it a crime. “Victimless crime” is an oxymoron. If you cannot show me a victim, then you have simply foisted your particular moral perspective off on me via judicial fiat and the threat of imprisonment or fine.

crime requires a victim.<BR>

10-05-2000, 01:01 PM
"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our goverment was founded."

-- Abraham Lincoln
December, 1840

Yes it would work but the only problem is we have sold by our media and goverment into believing that we need this massive goverment to make all of our decisions for us.To raise our kids,make our moral decisions, and spend all of our money. ( After all they obviously know how to do that better than us also - Just look at our social insecurity system ). We have been giving all of our freedoms away for some time and I just hope we are going to take them back one day.

10-05-2000, 01:06 PM
I'm a libertarian Gaz, but my take on it is this:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>Libertarians assume that John Q Public is smart enough and moral enough to make his own decisions without interference from the government.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't buy this one. The average Joe isn't smart enough to make his own decisions.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>Libertarians also require that John Q Public take responsibility for his own mess when his smarts and morals fall short of this assumption.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RIGHT ON!!! I don't care if they are smart enough to make their own decisions or not, but I am, therefore everyone should be able to have the ability to govern themselves. When John Q Public screws up though, and loses all his money, **** him, it's not my problem.

I'm not an anarchist by any means. We still need police, etc. But the "crimes of personal" decision have to go. If I want to get high tonight when I get home, I should be able to, but I should also be prepared to deal with the consequences if something comes of it.

This country seriously lacks a sense of accountability.

ChiefsPlanet Administrator
Jimmy Raye for President...anything to get him out of Kansas City
[i]More Moreau</I>

10-05-2000, 01:07 PM
Gaz - Not throwing smack, but looking for an honest answer.

If someone does get strung out on legalized drugs, or overdoses on a one-time experiment, etc. Do I have the authority to withhold my portion of the tax burden that gives that guy a safety net? Can the hospital refuse emergency service unless he's insured? The paradigm of the 'functioning addict' may be acceptible, but its not the only kind of addict.

10-05-2000, 01:12 PM

so does that mean "You"(hypethetically)would believe that ex. smoking mary jane, itself hurts no one so therefore shouldn't be a crime? Speeding on the highway? seatbelt laws/helmet laws?

I want to play devils advocate.
smoking dope itself is bad for a persons lungs, as are cigarettes. If it isn't illegal, people do this and get lung cancer, my tax dollars pay for the required medical attention, one way or another...Is it really victimless? How about the person growing this, and selling it to your kids?

same argument for seatbelts(I wear mine after a bad accident without one..really wish i had with cool damp air)....not wearing one doesn't hurt others? But in a way, your insurance premiums go up because I did't wear my seatbelt, had an accident and the other drivers insurance had to pay for it..(I didn't ask for a dime, because I hate lawsuits)...

Prostitution....prostitute decides to be one, "john" wants a poke, fair trade....what about disease? pimps? etc...

I'm not trying to specifically argue these issues, but the right person can argue that no existing crime is "victimless"

I do believe in personally acountability and responsibility....Its not your mamas fault...if she didn't rob, rape or pillage.

10-05-2000, 01:13 PM

Our whole system is ****ed up that way.

In Germany, for instance, they pay slightly higher taxes than we do, and they have more restrictive laws. In return, they get universal health care, universal access to schools, free secondary education, and many, many other things.

In other countries, there are no laws, no taxes, and there's also no order, no safety, and no quality of life.

Here in the United States we suffer from "balance through dichotomy". We get the high taxes, the restrictive laws, and all the other government control. But if we live withing those constraints, as "working, law-abiding" citizens, we get NO benefits. The welfare state only takes care of you if you DON'T participate in the system. So I pay taxes, suffer stupid "morality" laws, and still pay out my *** for health insurance, education, and other things that my tax money "supposedly" pays for.

ChiefsPlanet Administrator
Jimmy Raye for President...anything to get him out of Kansas City
[i]More Moreau</I>

10-05-2000, 01:14 PM
Drugs are perfect example of the idiocy of both current major parties. (Will qualify that I don't do drugs, or encourage anyone else to do so)

War on drugs. Untold billions, and personal freedoms spent on this war! Live in one of the most conservative, regligous cities in the country, and in 15 minutes could find and buy, any drug I wish to consume. Is this war working.

All it has done is artificially drive up price, create a monetary reason for gangs, and fill up our prisons so we have to let violent felons out early.

With an artificial high price most drug users can not afford their habit, and have to resort to crime to fund their addiction. Which raises the possiblity that me or my family become another crime statistic.

More crime, more drug enforcement, less personal freedoms. A vicious circle. No wonder neither party wants to get off their drug, of more control!

An example is cigarettes. Very addictive, but know of many people that function just fine in society on this substance. No one yet has attacked me or my family to get cigarette money. Although with our government recently getting involved in raising the cost, someday it may happen.

Not looking forward to the day the crips and bloods control the cigarette market!<P>

10-05-2000, 01:21 PM
JC and Iowanian,

That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The "non-functioning addict" is the one that needs the "safety net". I think it's safe to assume that if he needs govt. help to pay his health bill, then he probably doesn't have health insurance, which leads that he probably doesn't have a job, which means he doesn't PAY TAXES. How is this right?

Taxes, welfare, social security, it's all a joke in this country. If we were allowed to keep what we pay in taxes and invest it in health insurance, etc. then we can be RESPONSIBLE for ourselves. If that poor guy forgot to buy insurance and now he can't pay, I guess he's going to die isn't he? I know that's pretty harsh, but it's also pretty harsh that I pay for TAXES and INSURANCE, so that my neighbor can sit at home all day, drink beer, and watch TV on his satellite dish that he bought with MY money.

ChiefsPlanet Administrator
Jimmy Raye for President...anything to get him out of Kansas City
[i]More Moreau</I>

10-05-2000, 01:26 PM
Just to clarify in light of htismaqe's remarks. I am not against a safety net for people in need. I do think that every effort should be made to assure that the safety net programs are run corruption-free.

My point was that a person who puts himself in a position to be a ward of state through the abuse of his own body has committed a crime of which I am a victim.

10-05-2000, 01:38 PM

I'm against having that govt-privided safety net, but I agree that a person who does this is committing a crime against the decent taxpayers. His crime is not using drugs, however. That's a moral issue. His crime is not having a job, or having proper insurance, or otherwise being a "contributing" member of the system.

Personally, I think you should get out what you pay in. And if you don't pay in, you don't get anything out, period.

ChiefsPlanet Administrator
Jimmy Raye for President...anything to get him out of Kansas City
[i]More Moreau</I>

10-05-2000, 01:48 PM
I am considered a hardass on this subject, so you should not take these views as respective of the Libertarian philosophy. I’m talking mainline Gaz here.

If someone wants to ride his motorcycle without a helmet, I accept his right to do so. Forcing him to wear a helmet would be a violation, IMO. It is his brainpan and I don’t care if he cracks it open on the curb.

Now, if this fellow does crack open his head on the curb, he had better be able to pay cash for his medical treatment, because I would let him bleed out and die rather than take money away from folks who did not act in this irresponsible manner. He made his choice and I respect his right to do so, but I would not spend a dime of public money to correct his error in judgment.

The same applies to the smoker or the skydiver or anyone else CHOOSING to behavior that might harm them. As long as they do not harm any non-consenting adult, I do not care how they damage themselves. I will not pay to correct their mistakes, but I will not prevent them from making those mistakes.

When the dealer tries to sell to an underage kid, I slam in jail for the maximum sentence allowed by law. No parole, no time off for good behavior, no plea bargain. The same applies to the person who gets stoned and has a wreck or the fellow who abuses a prostitute.

Personal responsibility for personal choices. Make whatever choices you want FOR yourself, but be prepared to pay for the consequences of those decisions BY yourself.

willing to make those tough decisions.<BR>

10-05-2000, 01:48 PM

I loudly hear what you are saying. I don't want to go on a rant but, some of this welfare stuff irritates me like a jellyfish enema and powdered with a poison Ivy leaf....

My dad has managed 15 rental houses and a farm for a money man colorado for as long as I can remember. I spent several weekends doing maintinence and building decks etc.. through HS and college....One house in particular has been occupied by 1 family for 12 years. In that time, they haven't payed their own rent or light bill 1 time that I'm aware of.......and have a 51" big screen TV, fishing boat, trampoline......My own family has never had close to that many luxuries...The guy is 6' about 220 and looks pretty stout...just a lazy idiot....ON a Spring break, during drizzle, I worked on a deck for 2 days while he sat inside and watched TV.....When I started the railing, he had the nerve to come out and B!*** about the style I was building ...wanted me to tear it down and do it a differnt way, so "he and the wife could sit out there undisturbed"....

I'm not sure exactly how they remove skill saws from his @$$, but I'm positive they had to reverse his cranial-rectal inversion 1st...

I don't mind paying for elderly, simple and handicapped....but lazy and unmotivated just Pi$$es me off to no end..

10-05-2000, 01:48 PM

Take your examples point by point.

Cigarette and pot smoking costing tax payers money. Does it really. Lung cancer could be the antidote to our social security problems. Let everyone smoke, die before 65 and the social security problem is gone. It is the health nuts that live to a 100+ that are a drain on our resources. By the way, does it cost anymore in health coverage for a smoker to die at 65 than it does to cover a another person with a whole laundry list of ailments living to 90.

Not wearing seat belts should only cost the person that doesn't wear them. Wearing seat belts does not prevent accidents. Any person that is involved in an accident with out seat belts, should be the one that has their premiums dramatically raised, if higher medical costs were due to their actions. The person involved becomes the bigger risk, and premiums should reflect that. Insurance is like the current government, spread the fault evenly.

Prositution - Pimps wouldn't be needed if legal. Could be set up like any other business. Don't pay for services rendered, much like shop lifting you get arrested. STDs can be avoided if one wishes to do so, take the risk, YOU pay the price. Victimless crime.

Should we raise taxes on, or out law Big Macs. Lack of moderation can lead to obiesity, heart problems, low self esteem and depression. All could cause a drain on public resources.

Should we be responsible for all that people do? Should we legislate against every thing we don't like. Using the it "costs all of us money" is big government way to gain more control.

10-05-2000, 01:50 PM
Red Till Dead,

Very well put.


There is not going to be a perfect system. That being said since you seemed VERY concerned about your tax dollars (as I am too)You should be concerned about our prisoner base going from 200K in this country in 1979 to over 2Million this year. Multiply this by 34k a year to house the drug smoking assailant and start worrying about that. The safty net should have to be paid back with interest whenever these clowns are re-habilitated. Even If they all of them never paid back a cent it couldn't be more expensive than our current situation.

10-05-2000, 02:00 PM
More information on the US Libertarian party.

http://www.lp.org/ <P>

10-05-2000, 02:03 PM
I see what you're saying, but I don't see the logic in incarcerating someone who have 8 marijuana plants in his basement for 40 years.

The average murderer in America spends 25 years, with parole after 7. The average marijuana grower spends 35 with parole after 13. Does that make sense?

Nothing around here seems to make sense anymore. I never said that any system is perfect, but common sense dictates that there can be some "happy medium". I agree that there's certain people that NEED to be taken care of. But I can't afford to take care of my elderly parent's, or my down-syndrome brother, and the government doesn't give them what they NEED because they're too busy writing checks to my jobless, lazy neighbor.

I agree with Gaz.

ChiefsPlanet Administrator
Jimmy Raye for President...anything to get him out of Kansas City
[i]More Moreau</I>

10-05-2000, 02:04 PM
Just to give you an idea on how bad the restrictions on our liberties has become. Log on www.LP.org (http://www.LP.org) and click on the seatbelt link.<BR>

10-05-2000, 02:16 PM
Hasta, y’all.

Another day done, another day closer to blessed retirement.

outta here.<BR>