To give an idea of how broad and varied the umbrella of libertarian is, I was first introduced to the term and decided I was one by a woman who was a libertarian in Texas in the 90s.
She was an open lesbian and a gay rights activist, and was libertarian and supporting the party because it was the only party against the at that time still on the books sodomy laws that made gay sex illegal. This was a big issue at the time and an example of a grossly unjust law,and I found the parties stance of “leave me alone government” resonated with me.
I think the party lost a fair bit of support as laws against sodomy and marijuana have been overturned or eased.
The stereotype of the average libertarian seemed to solidify a lot later.
You don’t mention property rights. You seem focused on, well, personal liberty. What do you think of Cliven Bundy?
Maybe you’re a fan of Cliven Bundy, Ayn Rand and the Koch Brothers, but if not, I find it sad that you identify as “libertarian.”
I’m in favor of “big tent” parties but it seems very very wrong if the Koch Brothers can co-opt your vote becuase of the gay rights isuue.
Looking “liberty” up in a dictionary to understand what the American political label “libertarian” means, is akin to looking up “democratic” to get a handle on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
~ ~ ~ ~
After writing the above, my memory was jogged and I found that you and I had a similar discussion almost three years ago. Indeed you’re the Doper I mentioned upthread in connection with the Libertarian Party platform!. You warned that it was “long.” I clicked the link and found a shortish document whose very first sentence was straight out of Ayn Rand:
You responded:
I guess three years of pondering didn’t change your mind, so three more years won’t either. I’ve quoted part of the old thread to clarify things for the spectators.
I responded to a poster who emphasizes personal liberties (gay rights, etc.) and therefore, perhaps, votes for candidates sponsored by the Koch brothers. He posted a link to the Libertarian Party Platform, but hadn’t even read it. I wonder what he’d say about the very first sentence in the preamble, straight out of Ayn Rand, which strikes me as antithetical to a good-spirited embracing of fellow humanity.
A sample of one isn’t much to go on, but I wonder how many who call themselves “libertarian” are just responding to soundbites about issues like gay rights while ignoring the economic programs of America’s “libertarian” politicians.
I doubt most people with libertarian leanings support even most of that platform. We could wonder much the same about those who call themselves Dems or 'Pubs or Greens or whatever. I’m a registered Democrat and I couldn’t tell you much about what’s in the party platform. If there even is one that calls for specific policy actions, I bet I don’t like a good chunk of it.
It’s easy to support a party or a politician with unusual positions when those positions have no chance of ever coming to be. Abolishing the IRS, etc. isn’t going to happen. But gay marriage is happening. Marijuana decriminalization is happening. And wack-jobs who want to just about abolish the federal government can play an important role on the Hill even if we ultimately don’t want their wishes to come true.
I have no idea whether Dopers who call themselves “Libertarian” vote for the extreme candidates who pursue what’s in that Platform. If a Doper said “I consider myself a libertarian but would never vote for the nuts who lead the Lib Party” I’d have no problem.
But I would find it very sad if voters concerned about personal freedoms – gun rights, gay rights, recreational drugs, pro-Choice, etc., – end up supporting the sort of candidate Kochs like… Yes I would use support from the Kochs as a good reason to vote against a candidate.
Many politicans support gay rights, legalizing pot, etc. (And grude himself acknowledges that this diminishes the importance of voting libertarian.) I consider difference on economic policies to be much more important in American national elections than some of the social issues. (YMMV, but I’m right. )
There are caricatures out there. Even on this Board we hear that Democrats act deliberately to keep blacks in poverty so that they will be faithful Democratic voters! If anyone believes this, I think they should vote against the Democratic candidates. But I think it’s a caricature.
The difference is that the caricatures of Libertarian thought are not caricature!! The L.P. is still heavily influenced by the Kochs; I’d ask any “Libertarian” if they’ve watched the recent Greenberg(?) documentary.
It’s easy to go to a website “Click to find out where you fall politically” and discover “I favor social freedom; I favor economic freedom – Heck I’m a Libertarian!” I’ve done this myself.
The important thing is not to vote for the politicians emphasizing their “Libertarianism.” These are Ayn Rand nuts financed by Koch, etc. who want to rape America for the benefit of billionaires.
Have I finally made myself clear? If not, ask again in the Pit.
I’m in it now, and have been probably for longer than you. Your claims are bullshit.
Yes, in fact they are. If by “caricature” one means “projection”.
Yes, quite clear. Nothing of what you have posted has any relation to mainstream libertarian thought, and the kind of response that it deserves belongs only in the Pit.
Right on all counts.
Note to all concerned: debating specific ideas is far more productive and meaningful than bashing away at what is or isn’t “libertarian” enough to deserve that label, or using labels of any kind to support demonization in place of debate.
The whole thing boils down to which side of the “Help the people immediately” vs. the “Motivate them to help themselves” side of the argument you fall on.
Of course, there are misapplications on both sides; the first side gets too wound up (IMO) with the idea that needy people need to be helped NOW, and create moral hazards and perverse incentives for people to be underemployed, or not work at all. The second side tends to be so averse to the moral hazards and perverse incentives that they end up rather indifferent to suffering on the part of the needy.
Both have their value; on one hand, you don’t want to let people starve or die from exposure in this day and age, but on the other, setting up perverse incentives and moral hazards is from a fiscal point of view, potentially worse than not providing help at all.
Do most people, today, support the government helping the poor? IMO, yes, they do. If the government no longer helped the poor, wouldn’t these same people support helping the poor? Of course. Then why does the government need to get involved, if the poor would be helped without them? People would have more of their own money to use as they see fit . . . including helping the poor.
Unless, of course . . . these people believe in helping the poor only with other people’s money, not their own. I seriously wonder whether that’s the case.
There is also evidence that often charitable giving declines somewhat where government social spending increases (cite, cite). That doesn’t necessarily prove private charities will pick up the slack if government doesn’t do it, but it is an indication.
Such a system might work for some, maybe even most, poor people. I have my doubts (see the next point), but say that it does. It won’t equally well for all poor people. If you’re the right religion, live in the right area, are the right race, and have the right social circle, you may do just fine. What if you don’t? Putting someone in a position to literally either starve in the gutter or turn to crime is a short-sighted, foolish policy.
I don’t think it would work for most poor people. Social networks correlate to class; poor people mostly rub elbows with other poor people, and rich people with other rich people. Why should a well-off person give to people he’s never met, when he has no incentive to do so? After all, surely someone else will, right?
The free market only works because people respond to incentives, and it’s set up to align those incentives with positive outcomes (such as the production of goods and services to meet demand for them). Your proposal goes the other way: it aligns incentives with a negative outcome (starving, desperate people).
Therefore, if the majority of people want the poor to receive aid, a system that provides equal access to that aid for all, and doesn’t run afoul of free-rider problems or a prisoner’s dilemma (wherein the best strategy for each player is to give nothing and keep their money, while others give), is the best system. The government is ideally suited to run such a system, as it’s within their purview.
Well, I believe in giving. I probably give $200-300 directly to the homeless per year*, and more through other routes.
But I think you’re excluding the middle here. I think it’s more effective if everyone above a certain level contributes to the best of their ability. We all benefit from keeping the number of people not starving/freezing to death on the streets to a minimum, so we’ve all got an interest, whether an individual understands that or not. Since the government is the group we have given the authority to compel contributions from citizens, I don’t know how else to enforce my belief.
If we agree on the above, then we only disagree on the amount people should be compelled to contribute at certain income levels, and at what level and conditions they should be able to receive benefits. Thorny questions, but not as fundamental a problem as thinking other people should handle your problems for you with their money, alone.
*No, not the best delivery system. I often buy tacos at a 24 hour taco stand, and I work nights. I’m a prime target and am probably known as a soft touch. But, I am confused by the guy who comments on my beard and asks about my love of ZZ Top every Thursday night.
A purely market-driven charity system would be to the advantage of poor people who are charismatic, pretty, witty, well-spoken, and highly marketable. It would be to the detriment of the ugly, diseased, crippled, and mentally disturbed – the very people who need the help the most.
Market-driven systems are highly susceptible to marketing. Funny, that.
Let’s ignore any caricatures you may think I’ve posted, and ask any “libertarian” or anyone defending them to comment on specifics of the Libertarian Party Platform I’ve linked to. Start with just the first sentence in the preamble if the shortish platform is “too long.”
Just to clarify - when you said that libertarian politicians"are Ayn Rand nuts financed by Koch, etc. who want to rape America for the benefit of billionaires", that was false, right?
If it is false, then you should explain why you posted it and how you thought it would help the debate. If you stand by it, then how about defending it?
Let’s see some cites where Ron Paul says he wants to rape America. TIA.
)