To describe the CIA-backed 1963 coup as “putting Saddam in power” is a weensy bit of an exaggeration, since the regime installed that year arrested him a year later.
My answers are identical to John Mace’s so I’ll refrain from doing the point-by-point answers. I consider myself a conservative-leaning moderate, and a lot of libertarian ideals resonate with me…I just wish there were more viable candidates from them.
Howdy, cousin!
A libertarian extremist exhibits many, but not necessarily all, of the following attributes:
- believes that America is an hypostatized entity, conceived by coercion and fabricated from fiat declaration.
Pretty much. Still, at the time, it was as close as you were going to get to ideal. We need to do that again in a new and free land. That’s how you build freedom.
- believes that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, put in power by tyrannical American hegemonists.
More or less. I still blame the Brits more than anyone, though.
- believes that America should never go to war unless one or more specific Americans are victims of aggression.
I’m going to agree here.
- supports the immediate withdrawal of American armed forces from every foreign base.
Really. Really. Really tempted to agree here. Don’t. This is part of where we differ, I’m a bit of an imperialist, I suppose. Let’s just say ‘where American interests and lives are not currently threatened.’ and meet part of the way?
- believes that capitalism is just one viable economic model among others, and that any economic model, including communism, is acceptable so long as all participants are volunteers.
The last part is the tricky part. But it’s working for Open Source. Breaking supply and demand is the enabling factor, and to do that, you essentially have to have infinite supply. Electronic data is infinite. That said, capitalism scales up in ways some others don’t.
- believes that equal men can’t be free, and free men can’t be equal.
Excepting that we call came into this world free and equal. We were created that way. Generally, though, after that, I agree.
- believes that government creates crime out of whole cloth when it enforces laws of prohibition.
There are two kinds of crime. One is manufactured by the government, and the other begins when you ignore the fact that my face happens to be in the location you’re swinging your fist into.
- believes that a moral duty ought not to be codified into a civic duty.
True.
- believes that business should not be subsidized by government.
In theory, true. Pragmatically, if a government is to exist, it needs to subsidize certain things. But I can agree here.
- believes that there are meritorious arguments both for and against abortion, but believes that in any case, those who oppose it should not have to subside it.
Yep.
- believes in a conspiracy led by Democrat and Republican leaders to exclude third parties from serious electoral contention.
Yep. Not so much needed, these days. But the political system also helps. I think the Canadian method helps third parties. As does the NY State method.
- believes that homosexuals, like all other peaceful honest people, should be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way.
Fuck yes, to pardon the expression.
- is sick and tired of both the Bush and Clinton dynasties.
And the Kennedy. And… well, there you go. Still, if they were the right person for the job, I’d vote for a Bush again.
1. believes that America is an hypostatized entity, conceived by coercion and fabricated from fiat declaration.
It should come as no surprise that the state is statist, but the rest strikes me as silly rhetoric.
2. believes that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, put in power by tyrannical American hegemonists.
Yes to the first part, use of the word “hegemonists” prevents my giving a serious answer to the second part.
3. believes that America should never go to war unless one or more specific Americans are victims of aggression.
No.
4. supports the immediate withdrawal of American armed forces from every foreign base.
No.
5. believes that capitalism is just one viable economic model among others, and that any economic model, including communism, is acceptable so long as all participants are volunteers.
Yes to first part, define volunteer on second part.
6. believes that equal men can’t be free, and free men can’t be equal.
Didn’t that stuttering kid with the Ayn Rand fetish carve this into his desk in sophomore year? That’s just neat, and it makes me giggle like a happy fat infant.
7. believes that government creates crime out of whole cloth when it enforces laws of prohibition.
Is there another kind of crime? Either I’m dumber than I think or this statement is dumber than it looks, not sure.
8. believes that a moral duty ought not to be codified into a civic duty.
Yes, sure.
9. believes that business should not be subsidized by government.
No, and this contradicts the second part of 5 anyway.
10. believes that there are meritorious arguments both for and against abortion, but believes that in any case, those who oppose it should not have to subside it.
No. People that don’t agree with Iraq still have to pay for the army. Be on the team or off it, can’t pull the take-your-ball-and-go-home bit.
11. believes in a conspiracy led by Democrat and Republican leaders to exclude third parties from serious electoral contention.
I don’t think we need a conspiracy to explain the unelectability of third party platforms in this country.
12. believes that homosexuals, like all other peaceful honest people, should be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way.
Okay.
13. is sick and tired of both the Bush and Clinton dynasties.
Yes.
Sorry to be tardy to the party, but off to IMHO.
Just out of curiosity, what tenet of libertarian philosophy do you think would lead to that conclusion?
Regarding Question #5 - Don’t Libertarianism and Capitalism go together like peanut butter and jelly? Seems like they’re nearly inseperable to me. It’s acutually more than that; it’s more like they are the same theory - one half defining economics and one half defining politics. What am I missing here?
I consider myself pretty close to an “extreme” libertarian, let’s see…
1. believes that America is an hypostatized entity, conceived by coercion and fabricated from fiat declaration.
This one is a bit confused. In the strictest denotative sense, not so much; however, I have a feeling you’re going more for the implied meaning, in which case my answer would be yes.
2. believes that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, put in power by tyrannical American hegemonists.
Definitely yes to the first part, partly yes to the second. There are other factors that put and kept him in power than the original American involvement; however, without American involvement, he likely wouldn’t have gotten into power, so…
3. believes that America should never go to war unless one or more specific Americans are victims of aggression.
I definitely agree with this. Policy and pre-emptive action are insufficient reasons for going to war. Would I attack my neighbor, knowing he really didn’t like me, once I found out he bought a rifle?
4. supports the immediate withdrawal of American armed forces from every foreign base.
As I read it, I can’t agree with this, and can’t see how it relates necessarily to libertarianism, unless you mean in the sense of occupational forces. For countries with which we’re friendly, I think it’s mutually beneficial to have bases abroad to guarantee a swift military response in the case of the need to go to war because either us or one of our allies was attacked. However, If you’re refering to nations where we have bases that aren’t exactly welcome, and that we don’t exactly want to be in in the first place, then I’d agree fully.
5. believes that capitalism is just one viable economic model among others, and that any economic model, including communism, is acceptable so long as all participants are volunteers.
I strongly agree with this in theory, but I’m not sure it makes sense in practice, only because certain economic models only work on certain scales. That is, communism works very well on small scales (like, say, a monastery), but is impossible to have 100% volunteers at a large enough scale. IOW, I can only see, in practice, a truly free, free-market economy having full volunteerism at any practical scale. However, in theory, if all participation is voluntary, even if it is a flawed economic model, it is acceptable.
6. believes that equal men can’t be free, and free men can’t be equal.
I don’t necessarily agree with the harshness of the wording, only because it negates a theoretically possible state (though exceedingly rare in practice). However, the underlying principle is self-evident, in my opinion.
7. believes that government creates crime out of whole cloth when it enforces laws of prohibition.
Yes, I don’t merely believe it, I think it is demonstratable fact.
8. believes that a moral duty ought not to be codified into a civic duty.
Yes, though this is really the basis of the problem presented by #7 and seems to make it relatively moot, except as a distinct consequence. Why else do we prohibit things unless they’re moral vices?
9. believes that business should not be subsidized by government.
Absolutely. If a business can’t survive on it’s own, I don’t want my taxes being thrown into a money pit.
10. believes that there are meritorious arguments both for and against abortion, but believes that in any case, those who oppose it should not have to subside it.
My libertarian thought has had me going back and forth on this issue in such a way that I can’t come up with a satisfactory solution without HUGE changes to the system in place. That said, you’re absolutely right.
11. believes in a conspiracy led by Democrat and Republican leaders to exclude third parties from serious electoral contention.
Are you implying that Democrats and Republicans are cohorts in this conspiracy? I think there are conspiracies, and that the parties play into this. Unfortunately, by the very nature of our electoral system and people’s tendency to “vote against” or “vote for the lesser of two evils” often results in them only voting in favor of those whom they deem have a realistic probability of winning. IOW, I think it tends to be more an artifact of the system than a conspiracy. That said, I will agree that Democratic and Republican leadership, seperately, fear the influence of third parties and their ability to suck away their base and do what they can to sabotage their rise. Even moreso, I’m disgusted when third party candidates, even those with whom I thoroughly disagree, are blamed for the loss of a major party candidate (eg, Perot, Nader, Buchanan); that is, if the major party couldn’t appeal to people that “should” be voting for them, then maybe it is proof that this country and her people are too diverse to be covered by only two parties.
12. believes that homosexuals, like all other peaceful honest people, should be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way.
In essence, by what I think you mean, I agree; however, I think the wording makes it a loaded question. I would simply state that any group, so long as they do not violate the rights of others, may pursue their own rights in their own way, including the “right to pursue happiness”. Otherwise, it seems to fall into the rhetoric of giving “special” rights when, in fact, they’re nothing more than a different expression of the same rights.
13. is sick and tired of both the Bush and Clinton dynasties.
Not only am I sick of those political dynasties, I’m sick of ALL the political dynasties that plague us today (like the Kennedys and others I can’t recall right now). Moreover, I’m sick of career politicians in general. It’s rare to find a career politician who hasn’t become disenfranchised, or at least detached from his constituency, after some period of time. In my opinion, being a politician should be viewed as service to the country not a career in its own right.
I think the case there is just that a lot of capitalists lean towards libertarianism, in so much that it helps them. I may be way off base of course.
Libertarianism is generally grouped with Capitalism, just like Socialism and Communism are often grouped together. That said, Libertarianism is really all about freedom, hence, on a small enough scale, it is completely plausible that it could be grouped with a different economic system.
For instance, let’s imagine that some Libertarians got sick of the US, banded together, bought a Carribean island, and founded Libertaria. Let’s assume they still practice Libertarianism to the letter except that they collectively decide that capitalism just doesn’t make much sense on a scale of 100 people and go with a more communistic approach (ie, “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need”). Let us also assume, for the sake of this example, that everyone was fully aware of this economic decision and had agreed to it prior to investing in the island and agreeing to move there. Provided no one is forced to participate-- that is, they can leave whenever they want, have whatever supplies they want airshipped in (at likely exorbitant prices), or simply gather everything themselves in their own way (like having their own farm)–exactly what tenet of libertarianism is being violated?
From www.lp.org, which bills itself as the Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee;
I.4 Property Rights
The Issue: The right to property and its physical resources, which is the fundamental cornerstone of a free and prosperous society, has been severely compromised by government at all levels. Public Policy instruments including eminent domain, zoning laws, building codes, rent control, regional planning, property taxes, resource management and public health legislation remove property rights from owners and transfer them to the State, while raising costs of property ownership. Public ownership of real property, beyond that which is explicitly authorized in the Constitution, and claims against resources both owned and unowned (such as the oceans or waterways) is illegitimate and creates scarcity and conflict where none would otherwise exist.
The Principle: Only individuals and private entities have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes on the valid rights of others. Resource management and planning are the responsibility and right of the legitimate owners of land, water and other natural resources. Individuals have the right to homestead unowned resources, both within the jurisdictions of governments and within such unclaimed territory as the ocean, Antarctica and extraterrestrial bodies
It seems to me that the whole property rights issue is HUGE with Libertarians and that wouldn’t at all be justifiable under some form of Communism. Of course, you’re right in your example that with a small population Capitalism wouldn’t probably be the best choice. I was certainly thinking of large populations when I posed my original question. Given those caveats, I still would argue (based on the whole property rights issue) that Libertarinism and Capitalism are basically inseperable. Of course, I’m still open to having my ignorace fought on this issue. Maybe this is turning into too much of a highjack though. I’m not sure how to draw the line on that issue (when it becomes too much of a highjack).
Another problem is that true libertarians are simply not joiners. Makes political activism problematic. 
You do know that this is probably the most unAmerican thing you could believe, right?
No problem. Your curiosity seems genuine, and your willingness to be informed is commendable. Ownership of private property indeed goes to the very heart of libertarianism. But for that very reason, owners have every right to pool their property with other owners who want to do the same. No one has the right to mug you; but you have the right to give your money away.
Why.? We didnt go there for that. We went for the oil. If you believed that terrorism was the point when we went in, when they left Afghanistan and went to Iraq you should have seen the truth. It is about oil and permanent bases. Deal with that in Libertarianism.
Believing that something should be judged on its own merits in unAmerican?
How you could possibly construe those remarks from what I said is just… unfathomable. I said that what I would do is put our forces “toward the purpose of finding Bin Laden”. I didn’t say anything about why Bush went. Bush is an idiot, and I do not now defend, nor have I ever defended, his policies. Did you unintentionally misread me?
I am actually a capitalist, so many Libertarian ideas sounds good to me.
- No
- Yes, No.
- No. Having allies is great. When people attack your allies, you smite them.
- No. Same reasons as # 3.
- Yes, but capitalism is the best I have seen proven out.
- Equal in rights but not equal in deed.
- Yes. Prohibition was not just a bad idea for alcohol.
- Yes.
- Yes.
- No. I think abortion hurts unborn babies. Should never have become a federal issue.
- Yes, but conspiracy implies collusion. I think it is overt.
- Yes.
- Yes.
This list should absolutely contain personal property rights. Yes, I like them. 
No, I believe that people are either going to have a working government of their own or they’re going to be ruled by another group of people who do have a working government. There are no other choices in the real world.
No, Saddam took power on his own. He was an ally of the United States at one point after he took power but the United States did not “create” him.
No, I think this is both too broad and too narrow a restriction. I don’t believe America, as a whole, should go to war any time one American is attacked - that just guarantees endless war against pretty much everybody. And I also don’t believe America needs to wait until it’s been the victim of an attack - a clear and present danger with the intent to use it against America can be sufficient reason. And in the same way that I believe individuals can make free and open agreements between themselves, I also feel that nations can do the same and that it is perfectly acceptable for America to enter into alliances with other countries for our mutual benefit.
No, for the reasons I just gave above.
I’d agree with this one. Although all the evidence is that other economic systems aren’t as viable as capitalism. But people who want to try out alternative systems should be allowed to.
I believe that a slogan isn’t a policy.
I would generally agree that individuals have the right to take any actions which only endanger themselves and that the government shouldn’t try to regulate morality.
I’m not sure what this one means. To the extent I think I understand it, I’d agree in accordance with what I wrote above.
In most cases, I’d agree. But I can think of examples of businesses that would serve society or the national interest enough to justify government support if that was the only way they could exist.
I don’t believe abortions (or birth control) should have any special rules, for or against them, that do not generally apply to other medical procedures.
No, I believe that third parties have excluded themselves from the American political process by choosing not to express platforms that have any significant public support. If people wanted to vote for third parties, they would and third party candidates would get elected.
I agree.
I vote for individuals not families.
Un-American in the attributive sense. Not the predicative sense.
(Though that was a predicate nominative. Sorry.)