Help me understand Libertarianism.

[Younggun]

Why would they want to do that? The other parties don't really represent the same ideals.

Besides, an actual libertarian/Libertarian is a threat and neither party wants them.

 

[stdreb27]

Why would they want to do that? The other parties don't really represent the same ideals.

Besides, an actual libertarian/Libertarian is a threat and neither party wants them.

I don't disagree with that. I'm equating Ron Paulites with libertarians.
I think if you were a true Libertarian, in a much more political science academic term vs who voted for Ron Paul. You'd have little use for either party.

But remember I'm more of a reformer than a 3rd party guy when it comes to promoting a small government agenda or any agenda for that matter. There hasn't been a new party succeed since Lincoln. I don't think Paul gets in the House as a independent or on the Libertarian ticket.

 

[Younggun]

I see.

Ron Paul is one cool dude

 

[stdreb27]

I see.

Ron Paul is one cool dude

I think he's a true believer, through out his blame America first foreign policy and he's not so bad.

 

[Younggun]

Guess BC will have to start a Ron Paul thread so this can be discussed further.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[breakingcontact]

Guess BC will have to start a Ron Paul thread so this can be discussed further.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

I don't disagree with that. I'm equating Ron Paulites with libertarians.
I think if you were a true Libertarian, in a much more political science academic term vs who voted for Ron Paul. You'd have little use for either party.

But remember I'm more of a reformer than a 3rd party guy when it comes to promoting a small government agenda or any agenda for that matter. There hasn't been a new party succeed since Lincoln. I don't think Paul gets in the House as a independent or on the Libertarian ticket.

I would imagine you could say some pretty nasty things about some of the schlubs who consistently vote for establishment Republican candidates, especially in this last primary around the country. John Cornyn voters, now there's some intelligent folk.

Ron Paul was and is the real deal. Classical liberalism/libertarianism hit a resurgence in the 1970s after all the failed interventionist and central planning debacles in the 60s and 70s and thanks to economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman who spread the message in the media about libertarian principles.

Ron Paul came out of this and was the truest political expression. Hell, Ronald Reagan greatly benefited from this movement when he praised libertarianism and sounded like Ron Paul in many of his speeches. His actions were different, though, but lets not forget he was nearly assassinated shortly after taking office.

The neocon trotskyites are as great a threat to our liberty as the fascist Democrats.

 

[Sapper740]

Start here: Libertarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Wow! That was a read! It's going to take some time to absorb all I just read and some background research as I'm not familiar with all the terms used and I need to confirm the attributions. What I most take away from reading the article you posted is that there is unlikely to ever be consensus among Libertarians on what the final iteration of their philosophy is.

From the conclusion of the article:

"As with all prominent moral and political theories, the overall assessment of libertarianism is a matter of on-going debate."



\

 

[Sapper740]

;>)

 

[Acera]

There are bunches of free quizzes out there that will place you into the political spectrum, as defined by the creator of said quiz. Most all are completely worthless except for entertainment. However sometimes it is fun to take a bunch and see how each one places you in another area than the previous one. Sometimes people do find a trend. Of course you have to answer the questions honestly, not how you think you are supposed to get be what you want to be. Don't place too much emphasis on them, but might be worth a bit of time.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Wow! That was a read! It's going to take some time to absorb all I just read and some background research as I'm not familiar with all the terms used and I need to confirm the attributions. What I most take away from reading the article you posted is that there is unlikely to ever be consensus among Libertarians on what the final iteration of their philosophy is.

From the conclusion of the article:

"As with all prominent moral and political theories, the overall assessment of libertarianism is a matter of on-going debate."



\

Post #11 I believe is the real answer to your question. It basically explains that core libertarian principles are the same as those of classical liberalism and the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers. The general definitions of liberalism, classical liberalism, and libertarianism are essentially the same. You will never find a total consensus "on the final iteration of their philosophy" because they all approach issues differently and have unique spins of libertarian philosophy. This is not only true of libertarianism, but any school of thought or science. You don't define a movement on the basis of agreement on the specific and peripheral elements but rather on the more general and essential principles.

The essence of American political theory is classical liberalism and libertarianism. My question to you is, if you do not think you are a libertarian, then what are you, or what are the basic principles of your political philosophy? Or do you even have one?

It is easy to look at the progressive Democrats and say that the core of their philosophy is egalitarianism, socialism, Marxism, and Maoism.

But what are the core philosophical doctrines of the Bushes, Cheney, John McCain, Nixon, and the rest?
You will find it is Trotskyism and it comes directly from Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinsk and others.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

A good article: Trotskyism to Anachronism: The Neoconservative Revolution | Foreign Affairs

The other important influence on neoconservatives was the legacy of Trotksyism--a point that other historians and journalists have made about neoconservatism but that eludes Ehrman. Many of the founders of neoconservatism, including The Public Interest founder Irving Kristol and coeditor Nathan Glazer, Sidney Hook, and Albert Wohlstetter, were either members of or close to the Trotskyist left in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Younger neoconservatives, including Penn Kemble, Joshua Muravchik, and Carl Gershman, came through the Socialist Party at a time when former Trotskyist Max Schachtman was still a commanding figure.

What both the older and younger neoconservatives absorbed from their socialist past was an idealistic concept of internationalism. Trotskyists believed that Stalin, in trying to build socialism in one country rather than through world revolution, had created a degenerate workers' state instead of a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat. In the framework of international communism, the Trotskyists were rabid internationalists rather than realists and nationalists. In 1939, as a result of the Nazi-Soviet pact, the Trotskyist movement split, with one faction under James Burnham and Max Schachtman declaring itself opposed equally to German Nazism and Soviet communism. Under the influence of an Italian Trotskyist, Bruno Rizzi, Burnham and Schachtman envisaged the Nazi and Soviet bureaucrats and American managers as part of a new class. While Burnham broke with the left and became an editor at National Review, Schachtman remained.

The neoconservatives who went through the Trotskyist and socialist movements came to see foreign policy as a crusade, the goal of which was first global socialism, then social democracy, and finally democratic capitalism. They never saw foreign policy in terms of national interest or balance of power. Neoconservatism was a kind of inverted Trotskyism, which sought to "export democracy," in Muravchik's words, in the same way that Trotsky originally envisaged exporting socialism. It saw its adversaries on the left as members or representatives of a public sector--based new class.

The story gets interesting when you ask the question of whether the neocons' real goal is to establish "global democracy" or if it is actually global communism, which was the position of the John Birch Society in the 80s and the late Congressman Larry P. McDonald. Think trade with China and later NAFTA and GATT.

 

[stdreb27]

I don't understand libertarian who's against free trade agreements...

 

[JohnnyLoco]

I don't understand libertarian who's against free trade agreements...

Because we do not have "free trade". The Moral Case for Free Trade ? LewRockwell.com

Freetrade is not threatened by any new developments, free trade is only
threatened by government intervention. So rather than being part
of the problem, free trade is the solution. The problem is not that
we have free trade, the problem is that we do not have free trade.
We have government-managed trade. We have regulations that choke
American manufactures and small businesses. Our funding of the International
Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Export-Import Bank, coupled
with foreign aid, loans, bailouts, and subsidies – all courtesy of
the U.S. taxpayer – distorts the global marketplace. In short, we
have policies that reward foreign competitors while penalizing American
producers.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

...

The neocon trotskyites are as great a threat to our liberty as the fascist Democrats.

Worth repeating...

 

[Sapper740]

Why would they want to do that? The other parties don't really represent the same ideals.

Besides, an actual libertarian/Libertarian is a threat and neither party wants them.

Well, that's the question isn't it? What is an "actual libertarian/Libertarian"? When a person says, "I am a libertarian!", that explains very little about their politics. A "libertarian" might vote Libertarian, they might vote Democrat, they might vote Republican, they might vote Green Party, They might vote Communist Party, they might vote ????? You get the picture.

I've stated before that I'm a TEA Party member. The guiding principles of the TEA Party are about as clear and un-ambiguous as it gets. They are:

We're Taxed Enough Already!
We want a Federal government that is small enough to care of what the Constitution says it should take care of with the rest left to the states.
We want governments to abide by the Constitution.

Throw in a little "secure the borders" and "no Amnesty" and voila: Instant TEA! Who do we vote for? We plug our noses and vote Republican. Pretty simple huh?

 

[TheDan]

But what are the core philosophical doctrines of the Bushes, Cheney, John McCain, Nixon, and the rest?
You will find it is Trotskyism and it comes directly from Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinsk and others.

Very interesting perspective. I always considered the neocon's interventionist bent to be the modern extension of manifest destiny. This is slightly more terrifying

 

[Logarius]

Well, that's the question isn't it? What is an "actual libertarian/Libertarian"? When a person says, "I am a libertarian!", that explains very little about their politics. A "libertarian" might vote Libertarian, they might vote Democrat, they might vote Republican, they might vote Green Party, They might vote Communist Party, they might vote ????? You get the picture.

I've stated before that I'm a TEA Party member. The guiding principles of the TEA Party are about as clear and un-ambiguous as it gets. They are:

We're Taxed Enough Already!
We want a Federal government that is small enough to care of what the Constitution says it should take care of with the rest left to the states.
We want governments to abide by the Constitution.

Throw in a little "secure the borders" and "no Amnesty" and voila: Instant TEA! Who do we vote for? We plug our noses and vote Republican. Pretty simple huh?

AMEN to that. I could not have said it better.

 

[Hoji]

F. Paul Wilson, one of my favorite fiction authors summed it up the best for me.
KYFHO - Keep Your Fuckng Hands Off


Never initiate force against another. That should be the underlying principle of your life.


But should someone do violence to you, retaliate without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are sure that he will never wish to harm - or never be capable of harming – you or yours again.


There are three basic assumptions that KYFHO rests on.


First, nobody owns you except you.


Second, others have no right to do things to you without your consent, or take the things you value without your consent.


Third, if anyone does try to do something to you without your consent, any and all resistance is justified.


~*~*~*~*~


F. Paul Wilson.
The Complete LaNague Federation Series:
(An Enemy of the State, Healer, Wheels Within Wheels )

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Very interesting perspective. I always considered the neocon's interventionist bent to be the modern extension of manifest destiny. This is slightly more terrifying

From the horses mouth: Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order - WSJ