Am I an unwitting libertarian?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

Leaving aside the debate as to whether I am unwitting altogether, and in fact leaving aside any debate whatsoever about the validity of various political ideals, I am curious as to how to classify myself politically. On political tests, I score just left of center, making me a slightly liberal moderate or a centrist liberal.

I suspect I may have libertarian tendencies, though.

So, here’s the summary of my tenets, as I hold them - feel free to ask me questions about omitted positions… I may not have a position on them, or I may have accidentally left something out.

(Mods, if you feel this is more GD material, feel free to move it, but this forum was my best guess.)

Pro-Choice. Pro-Death Penalty. For Gun Control, but not a Gun Ban. Very Anti-Censorship. Indifferent to the Pledge “Under God” issue, but in general, believe that societal ethics, not morality, should govern policymaking. (For instance, so-called morality laws - enh. Not the govt’s place to make those decisions. But a govt. can say ‘Murder and Theft are illegal’ because Murder and Theft disrupt society’s ability to function as a whole.) Gay Marriage - ? Sure, okay. Definitely any proposed amendment to the Constitution preventing such should not be passed, because I believe the Constitution shouldn’t be about limiting the rights of the populace.

I believe in the capitalist economic system, but I find that government intervention in the case of monopolies and trusts is a good thing to keep competition going. Then again, if certain things were to be nationalized, like phone services, I have nothing against that on principle, I’d have to see how that works out. In the large scale, however, I don’t believe socialism would work because of what I perceive as human nature.

I think my problem in identifying my political beliefs is that I’m generally apathetic. Things are pretty good now. Things might be a little better if we moved towards “ultimate ideal X”.

Questions? Comments? Help?

2

Nationalization [of industries] and libertarianism don’t belong in the same sentence. You’re not a libertarian. If anything, you sound like a Democrat.

3

Also, there’s no reason to brand yourself a policital party. You can do just fine choosing candidates who follow your beliefs on certain issues (of course, since most of those candidates follow party lines, this is a lot easier said than done).

Just don’t cop out and vote the party line at the next election (“Well, I agree with them on a lot of things, but there are a couple of guys that I don’t quite feel comfortable supporting, but I agree with them more than enough to vote Dem. (or Rep. or Green, etc.)” I say, “grow some balls.”).

4

Well, the point on the nationalization thing was ‘For certain key items, since I’m not an economist, I’d be intrigued to find out how it would actually work.’ I mean, I can see the upside of nationalized phone service, in theory - and I can also see the downside.

I mean, the Postal Service works okay.

5

Hmm. I forgot one issue on which I am in general disagreement with the Democratic party line : Affirmative Action, while it may have been a Good Idea at the Time, should be done away with. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and inequity now doesn’t make up for inequities past.

I am a registered Democrat for the time being, I just wonder if it’s the “best” fit.

Honestly, though, the best Presidential Candidate I’ve seen (from what I know) during the time I’ve been eligible for vote was John McCain.

6

Sounds moderately libertarian to me, though your gun-control comment is moderately authoritarian. BTW a nationalised phone service sucks, though I think we benefitted to start with (much as you suggest with Affirmative Action).

Do you agree with the precept, ‘Freedom of action and choice with responsibility for your actions and choices’?

7

It’s a very nice idea, I’d say. Precepts and practices are different things, though.

I agree with gun control measures like background checks - I think those are a Good Idea. I have mixed feelings about the Assault Weapons ban, and haven’t really resolved myself on the issue yet.

8

Try this. I’ll guess you’re around (-3, -4).

9

I hate that damn thing.

10

JC, if you feel your score of (0.25, -5.08) is inaccurate, let me know and I won’t include it in the statistical analysis I’m building up over the course of those threads.

11

Agreed. Some of the statements are of facts (companies exploiting third world plant genetic resources) that I really don’t know the truth of… and others are doublespeak catch-22’s (it’s fine for blah blah blah sex, but these days it’s gone too far.)

For what it’s worth, this time when I went through it, I got :

Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.97

Which is very similar to what I got the last time.

12

Do you feel that is accurate, CG? A “libertarian” as understood in the US would likely have a positive economic score since they usually advocate less governmental intervention in the economy via taxation. You appear to be pretty “centrist” (although, of course, the central hub of the needle is placed entirely arbitrarily on that test - all it really makes much sense to say is that you are further left/right/up/down than someone else).

13

You’re definitely not a libertarian, as I understand the term. You are in favour of gun control, you want government intervention in the economy, and you don’t oppose nationalization of industries. Those are all irreconcilable with libertarianism.

That is, unless I’ve misunderstood completely. Wouldn’t be the first time.

14

Yeah, but it’s all mild. I’m in favor of mild gun control, minimal antitrust legislation, and I’m not opposed to the possible nationalization of certain key industries - simply because the only example of such that I have any experience with - the USPS - works pretty well.

15

I don’t feel that it is accurate or inaccurate - I have no frame of reference from which to judge the test. Kinda the point of this thread to categorize my political stance, y’know?

So is the general consensus that I am a moderate, a political pariah, stranded between the two opposing juggernaughts of American elections? Perhaps prone to hyperbole?

16

If I may offer my input to your question, Candid, I would assess myself by asking whether the following reflects a principle that I find so compelling that I could adopt it as the single political principle that overrides all others — “I believe that peaceful honest people should be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way.”

It is a pithy phrase, but rich with implication, and it reflects the heart of the Noncoercion Principle upon which libertarianism is based. Note that among the implications are these: (1) people who are not peaceful and honest should not be free, (2) each individual should define his needs and happiness as it is meaningful to him, (3) just because people are wealthy does not mean that they deserve to be targets of coercion, (4) government should ensure that people have a context of peace and honesty in which they can live freely, and (5) freedom means the absence of coercion (INITIAL force or deception), etc. You get the drift.

17

It sounds very pretty. I’m forced to consider the fact that realistically, though, it’d be difficult to establish and enforce.

18

Well, then, there you are. :slight_smile:

What has to be enforced, of course, is the suppression of initial force or deception. Whatever laws there are, they must address those issues and those alone because any other laws would be themselves coercive. But it hasn’t always been considered difficult. Certainly, classical liberals agreed. “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” — Thomas Jefferson, 1816. I’ve heard it said before that libertarianism is not practical. My reply has always been that whatever is practical depends entirely on what you’re practicing. If you’re practicing tyranny, then libertarianism is impractical indeed. But if you’re practicing voluntary human relations in a context of peace and honesty, then libertarianism is the only practical means.

19

What’s the problem? You’re not a libertarian if you believe in breaking up monopolies, or even the possibility of nationalizing industries - those are subsumed under the very broad category of “coercion” in libertarian thought. (And I’d agree that the USPS does work pretty well. UPS may not be any better.) Nor are any weapon restrictions acceptable to most libertarians I’ve known.

Whereas you support a lot of individual freedom, and freedom from the legislation of morality. Your views are pretty close to the platforms of the democratic party, and I’d say your limited acceptance of government interference in business is pretty strongly outside the bounds of libertarianism.

Hey, belonging to a major party nowadays isn’t trendy - I could probably count the number of registered members of a party among people I know around my age on two hands. Everyone else claims to be some flavor of independent. But it’s not wrong to recognize that one party is a lot closer to your principles than any other one, and to give their candidates a little more consideration when determining who to vote for.

Fact is, most people around me like to make strong claims about being “independent” and being “opposed to the party system”. They “vote on the basis of each candidate” (although, in reality, most of them don’t vote at all - at least not for local or state elections.) And they’re entitled to say that, but IMHO, the strong strain of distrust of party politics nowadays would be valid except that in most people I see it’s rooted much more heavily in apathy and a lack of understanding. If your views are close to those of a party (major or third), vote for ‘em. Hell, last time, I did my homework before voting, and I still voted a straight ticket. I checked - turns out, the candidates’ views were closer to mine than their opponents.

So be an independent who votes democrat, or a democrat who crosses party lines on occasion, or whatever. No need to try to shoehorn yourself into another category you don’t fit into.

20

Hmmm. Well, thanks for all the input thus far, folks.