Are libertarians our enemies?

Post Reply New Topic

What do you mean Libertarians? Are you arguing the party platform? I don't understand. The are dickish people of every political persuasion, liberal/conservative/communist/green/whatever. You seem to be confusing the ultradogma of Objectivism with the vague notion that we as individuals are entitled to liberty, to say "libertarians all believe in X, Y, and Z" is just wrong. It is not a religion. When you meet one libertarian, you've met exactly one libertarian and good luck getting two to agree on everything for the same reasons. As such, the movement is pretty fractious and can explain the success the Libertarian Party has had in accomplishing nothing. I don't really care for labels or political parties, I'll lend my support to whoever passes whatever threshold I've set in that election. I don't believe in things because they're considered right of left wing, some my views can be seen as very conservative and some can be seen as radically liberal so its not something I try to get pigeonholed into

There is a difference between idealistic vacuum-sealed perfect world positions in an academic discussion where you may be trying to be provocative and pragmatic political beliefs about policy if you were to gain that power that moment. Kind of like how some on the left can look towards certain aspect of the idea of communism as noble where as at the same time not advocating the violent revolution and state coercion that came along with the communist dictatorships of the 20th century. So yeah, if you ask if I think the idea that taxation is theft then I would probably say yes but to try to make the leap from there to the idea that I am some radical Social Darwinist that thinks that you specifically should die in the streets because of that couldn't be anything further from the truth at least for me since I am in the same boat as a lot you folks here as far as the struggle goes.

There will always be bad people. It doesn't matter what economic system we're under; the liars and cheaters and greedy will always find a way.

The word "libertarian" has been hi-jacked by certain right wing organizations in recent years. They like to describe themselves as libertarian because it's a good sounding word, but rarely if ever use it in a manner consistent with its actual definition.

Samuel Edward Konkin III wrote the "New Libertarian Manifesto" in the late 1970s (it was first printed in 1980) and in it he outlined the actual moral foundation of libertarianism. This was long before the word was stolen by the Republican party. You can Google it and the first result should be a .pdf file that you can read. Another good resource (which most people find to be an easier read) is a more contemporary which you can read here: Freedom

In Konkin's document, he explains that a libertarian believes that all human beings should be treated as equals regardless of race, gender, or other such arbitrary factors and that no group or individual has the right to own another human being, that people own themselves. This is the foundation of true libertarianism.

From this, something called the "Non-Aggression Principal" is derived. This is the idea that it's morally wrong to initiate violence against a peaceful person, threaten to initiate violence against them, steal from them or coerce them into doing something that they don't want to do. I'd like to think that most people would agree with this idea. It's certainly one that most people hold to most of the time. However, it's apparent that there are people who believe that it is acceptable to engage in assault, murder, kidnapping, etc. because people still do it.

To quote the text directly, "Libertarianism elaborates an entire philosophy from one simple premise: initiatory violence or its threat (coercion) is wrong and is forbidden; nothing else is."

So, gay marriage, legalizing pot, etc. are all things that true libertarians support, but the militarization of police, constantly starting conflicts in other parts of the world and so on are things that libertarians oppose.

What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the only reason a lot of mega-corporations are still afloat is because they receive bailouts and special tax breaks that smaller businesses don't. If you read the full document, you'll find that the libertarian philosophy is fundamentally opposed to bailing out the rich as has been common practice in recent years. Currently, they don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. In a libertarian society, they would have no mechanism for extorting money from the lower and middle classes to fund their endeavors.

There are now and have always been people who choose to give a certain percentage of their income to the less fortunate. This is a good thing. I don't have any money to give away, but I've volunteered quite a bit at a couple of local non-profits. Libertarianism isn't social Darwinism, it's just an opposition to the idea that one group of people can tell you "Give us X amount of money or men with guns will hunt you down and do bad things to you" or "stop self-medicating and take the drugs we tell you to take or men with guns will hunt you down and do bad things to you," even though any other party would go to prison for that type of behavior (and rightly so).

We don't want an "enforcer" class that's allowed to get away with extortion, assault, kidnapping and often even murder (as is currently the status quo). It's about equal rights for all people to do as they please without fear of someone else claiming that their group has moral authority to rob and attack peaceful people.

As I said before though, in recent years it's been conflated with a lot of Republican beliefs that have no place in Libertarianism.