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).]

Do whatever you like! It's a free country, and you have the right!

------------------
[b]ct
Give TRich the Ball!!!</B>

gaz knows...
sec

"What the hell do you mean teach a man to fish? If I'm not going to give a man a fish, I'm damn sure not going to waste even more resources teaching him how to?"

[I'm just teasing Gaz, who, after all, is about as good a citizen as one could hope to find in any barnraising.]

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

Oregon Chief
Libertarian,

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>

Iowa,

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.

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.

KC,

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.

RCGChief-

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.

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

Iowanian-

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.

xoxo~
gaz
crime requires a victim.<BR>

"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.

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.


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

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.

GAZ,

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.

Big_Daddy,

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.



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