Mind if I use that for a sig? Or on a bumper sticker? 
I just dropped by to read about extremist librarians.
Oh… never mind.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
After going through this list, it strikes me as a bizarre way to attempt to define any stripe of libertarianism at all, because so many of these items are either arguments I’ve never heard in my life, or complete non-sequiturs.
One at a time…
I have never, ever heard this before. Conceived by coercion? Every Libertarian I’ve ever talked to thinks that the U.S. came about because Americans threw off the yoke of British tyranny and declared themselves to be free. Is this a belief among some anarchist sect or something?
This belief is not something I’ve heard Libertarians talk about in particular, but I’ve heard it lots from people on the left. Again, is this some subgroup of Libertarianism you’re reading? Maybe the virulent anti-war guys or something? Most Libertarians of any extreme really have little opinion on exactly how Saddam came to power.
Never heard that either. Libertarians believe that you should never initiate force. The split among the various factions really revolves around how you define ‘initiate’. A common debate is, "If a madman next door shoots one of your neighbors, and then says he’s going to shoot you next as soon as he reloads some ammo, is it ‘initiating force’ to shoot first when you see him feverishly at work at the reloader? Extreme Libertarians say yes. He actually has to attack you before you can shoot back. Until then, you can take defensive measures only. Move away, put up a shield, whatever.
But I’m not sure even they would forbid signing mutual protection pacts with allies, and going to war if that ally was then attacked. And I’m not many of them would have a problem with shooting down a nuclear bomber headed for the U.S., even if was still in international waters. This is a really gray area for most Libertarians.
There’s defnitely a camp within Libertarianism that supports this. Does that make them extremists? I think you’ll find supports of this idea throughout the various factions of Libertarianism, along with opponents. I think you must be reading one very specific, extreme, anti-war, breed of ‘Libertarians’ - of the Justin Raimondo sort. I’m not sure that bunch is Libertarian. They seem more like anarchists or something. Very angry, often found in bed with their extreme liberal counterparts because they share a lot of traits in common.
None of the ones I know do. Saying that Communism is potentially compatible with Libertarianism is roughly equivalent to saying that Capitalism is ‘potentially compatible’ with Communism, so long as everyone who participated in economic life had identical goals as Communists would have and behaved accordingly.
It’s not even remotely possible in the real world. You simply cannot have large scale Communism without significant interference in the lives of individuals through coercion. It can’t be done. Anyone who sits around pondering this as a serious debating point is just wanking.
Libertarianism means people are free to choose who they will trade with, and which terms they will accept. That is the very definition of a free market. If the government controls those choices and makes all the economic decisions, the people are not free. Commuism is not just incompatible, it is the antithesis of everything Libertarian stands for.
I suspect this viewpoint is espoused by that strange breed of ‘libertarians’ who actually sound like, well, Communists. They’re just nuts.
Which is why he cannot believe that Communism is remotely compatible with Libertarianism.
Uh, yeah. You can’t have crime without a law. If you mean it creates even more crime than just the crime of breaking the prohibition act, they’d agree with that too. But is this really an ‘extremist’ position? I don’t think I know anyone, of either political stripe, who doesn’t acknowledge that organized crime prospered under prohibition.
Well, unless you’re talking abuut a moral duty to refrain from initiating violence against others… Or any number of other morals codified into the Libertarian ethic.
I think this would be better phrased as, “Just because something is a good idea does not mean it would be a good law.” It’s a good idea to walk my dog every day. I don’t think there should be a law mandating that owners walk their dogs daily. The world is full of good ideas that would make horrible laws.
Absolutetely.
Sorry, but the abortion argument doesn’t really have a ‘libertarian’ position. It all comes down to whether the baby’s right to not be killed outweighs the mother’s right to kill it. Libertarians are as conflicted as anyone else. The vast majority are probably pro-choice, but almost by default - “It’s a moral dilemma, so since I don’t know the answer I have to defer to the rights of the person who is currently sentient and with acknowledged rights.”
I think you’ll find Libertarians across the board who acknowledge that it’s completely arbitrary to say that once a baby moves an extra inch out of the mother somehow it received rights and killing it would be murder, but if it hadn’t moved that extra inch you can jam a pick into its skull if you feel like it. It IS arbitrary. Many are also queasy about third-trimester abortions, even if they feel they don’t have a right to stop them. Just like most everyone else.
I’m not sure ‘conspiracy’ is the right word. They believe that Democrats and Republicans have a vested interest in the two-party system, and pass laws to protect it. Again, is this extremist? Everyone knows what Gerrymandering is.
Of course. I don’t think this is ‘extremist’ at all. I think this is almost a mandatory Libertarian position. Show me one who doesn’t believe it.
This is extremist? I think we’re pretty much ALL sick of it. It’ll be really nice to see a crop of fresh faces in the next election.
Is this then really just your personal views, wrapped up in a questionnaire? That would explain why it doesn’t really match the belief set of any defined group of Libertarians I can think of.
About that ‘wanker’ and ‘nuts’ stuff… I didn’t actually mean to post that. I was going to edit the message and remove it, but I ran out of edit time. No personal offense intended!