The VP candidate for the Libertarian party just lectured at my school last week. He was supposed to give a talk about the ties between libertarian politics and existentialism, which sounded really cool, except one problem... he couldn't have come off any more bland or vague. Asked repeatedly specific questions of how libertarians would deal with social problems, he kicked back a phrase(s) almost like we were listening to a recording...

"We believe in a bottom up approach to government. So to answer your question, I would say we would apply that philosophy to (whatever scenario)."

I am all for a lot of what libertarians preach, but seeing this guy who seemed like the most inarticulate, unconvincing candidate stand in front of us was perhaps the most disheartening thing I have seen in a while. He talked a little bit about how our country is stuck in a two party system and that we need to have more alternatives, yet sad to say he didn't seem like much of an alternative. Just venting I guess.

___________________
Lost Souls

In my view, Libertarian politics wouldn't work in this country. It would work in a smaller country, but because our country is so large, with many different cultures, ethnic groups, viewpoints, experiences and of course countless problems, no it wouldn't work. That's probably why they don't get elected. Although in a Utopian society, there would be no government, but with no government, you would have no control, you'd have chaos (thus it would be no utopia). And then religion would need to take over government, thus creating a theocracy. Essentially, the best government is one that governs in the middle, not the one that governs the least as libertarians tend to believe.

Too much government = dictatorship
Too little government = anarchy

Government should be balanced.

I agree with Ron Paul on the need for a change, for fiscal responsibility and against the war in Iraq and interventionalism/policing the world/nation building, but he hasn't explicitly addressed how a libertarian would solve our health care problems, social security, poverty, violence, education, civil liberties, immigration (somewhat I feel he's a bit apprehensive about it), and many other issues. In the case of Katrina, I thought that was the perfect example of a government governing least...too laisse faire. Personal responsibility is great, but you can't expect everyone to have that, esp in situations in which they are helpless and don't have any control. Some people need government help. There needs to be fair and balanced taxation ,as long as it is not abused, as it's been. Taxation is important to bringing in revenue for services provided. Loss of revenue = loss of funding for things like education (esp public education), the military, police and fire-departments, trash pick up, lots of services basically.

Last edited by Spirit5 on May-05-2007 at 03:39

Libertarian = Small Government
Small Government != Anarchy

Difference...it's also important to note that small government for Libertarians is on a national scale. "Big" government on a local and to some extent state scale is not necessarily seen as a bad thing.

Libertarian Party Platform

Libertarians are a bunch of free wheeling capitalists. I have pages and pages of notes about them from one of my poli sci classes.

no thanks.

Government intervention is a must, in my opinion. Libertarians are the type that wouldn't mind another Carnegie or Rockefeller.

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers Libertarians are a bunch of free wheeling capitalists.

Yeah, those liberty lovin' wackos must be stopped!

quote:

Government intervention is a must, in my opinion. Libertarians are the type that wouldn't mind another Carnegie or Rockefeller.

I certainly wouldn't mind. Those men helped build this country...creating millions of new jobs and billions in new wealth for their shareholders and employees. And their philanthropic contributions continue helping the poor today (80 years after their deaths). Free enterprise and limited government are far more effective poverty-fighting tools than any "great society" program the feds can come up with.

Last edited by Capitalizt on May-05-2007 at 16:04

This is the problem of the party though. There are tons of people who simply think they are just capitalism loving anarchists, and guys like their VP candidate really don't help. The libertarian philosophy is by no means as easy as some people make it (like their VP candidate) but I do find myself agreeing with their overall message.

NeoPhono summed it up pretty nicely. The libertarians just believe in increased local government power, versus that on a national scale. Why should some guy in DC be telling me how I should live my life in rural Illinois, for example.

___________________
Lost Souls

kush, I gotta say...the reason the overall message sounds simple because really IS simple!

A Libertarian system of justice can really boil everything down to just two rules. There will be only TWO basic laws that apply to everyone in a free society:

#1. No theft.
#2. No violence.

That's it! Government exists to enforce these two simple rules, and should otherwise leave people free to pursue their own interests. So long as you don't hurt people or steal anything, you should be free to engage in any activity you want, both in the bedroom AND in the boardroom. If you respect the rights of others, government will not interfere. That is Libertarianism.

That's a little extreme.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail That's a little extreme.

How's that?

Sounds pretty good to me.
Who would want to live in a place that doesn't?

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

I would not want police officers not to enforce drunk driving, which doesn't fall under theft or violence.

Listen, I'm not an idiot, I understand the libertarian philosophy. What I'm saying is that the way you (Capitalizt) and the VP seem to have the world pictured seems a hell of a lot different then how I see it. How I see libertarian thought is that they basically are for everyone being free to pursue their own interests, whatever they may be, so as long as they do not hinder anyone else's pursuits. While that is all well and good in theory, I don't believe it is practical.

First off, there are members of society whose pursuits are hindered by the current system we live in. Now, you can be one of these idealist Libertarians and say, 'but if we had a libertarian system, these problems would continue to exist.' I've heard it said before, and I think its the biggest load of bull. You can't just privatize the school system, for example, when kids from lower income families already are getting fucked over.

The problem with the Libertarian party is that they have their ideals of a Utopian free society, but it simply isn't practical at this point. I believe steps rather than leaps need to be made, and by the party pretty much reiterating what you are saying Capitalizt, they are making themselves far more oppositional to our current system than is really reasonable.

I think letting giving local governments power and cutting off much of the power in Washington is the correct approach, yet I feel the local governments need to be able to do what they feel is necessary to help their people. You have far greater control of what is done on a local scale, whereas on a national scale, democracy is really just an illusion. That, I think is a practical approach to libertarian thought.

___________________
Lost Souls