I registered Libertarian this year because I felt the Dems and Reps need a more direct challenge than they get from people just registering independent, which I always had done before.
I’m also four-square behind the libertarian philosophy…well, 3.25-square behind it anyway.
So what’s the deal with this party? Why are there so many nut cases? I mean come on, now, Lyndon Larouche? Who are we kidding?
Is it beacause all the good people who could build the party into something effective are drawn, by their hopes of actually being elected and accomplishing something, into one of the other parties? This would leave us with unmoderated extremists, I guess.
My roommate thinks there is something in the philosophy itself that makes adherents disorganized and, well, flaky. She’s pretty socialist, though, so I tend to take that with a grain of salt. Is she right?
Well, we will assume this gets moved (it hasn’t been at the time of this writing).
I think there is something to what your roommate has said, I think it is this:
The philosophy is very simple.
This is very appealing to flakes and extremists, and many other people who are consciously or unconsciously rejecting the complexity of political reality in favor of something they can actually understand.
This is hardly limited to any single political orientation, the far right is typified by platforms and proposed legislation that ignores the complex reality of modern life in favor of ‘value principles’ (such as prayer in school, etc) that people can understand and attach themselves to on an emotional level. The far left is similarly attached to the concept of fairness at an emotional level that does not take into account many practical dependencies.
I’ll buy Cooper, but I think the question really is: Why isn’t there any moderate faction in the Libertarian Party? I don’t know much at all about them, but they are a total reject, in my case, based on their outlook(s) on personal weaponry. What is being really sought here, I think, is moderate anarchy. I’m not sure what that is.
Ray (Maybe we just live in a two-dimensional world, wherein the thrust of Libertarianism is simply “hyper”, so to speak.)
I second Cooper’s answer. My take on Libertarianism is that it is a very simplistic, utopian system that doesn’t stand up to rigorous scrutiny and would never survive in “the real world.” Even Libertarian, the perennial apologist for it, frames Libertarianism as a philosophy by which “peaceful honest” people can govern themselves. Well, sadly, I don’t think most people are that peaceful, that honest, or that responsible.
That said, I think that some of the ideas underlying Libertarianism – such as less government and more personal responsibility – are good ones. I just don’t think Libertarianism itself, taken to the extreme hard-core Libertarians want to take it – would ever work. As I’ve said before, if I thought it was a workable system, I’d be a Libertarian, too.
You hit the nail on the head for me. The ideas seem good, but not workable simply because there are to many people who are irresponsible and dishonest. Libertarianism reminds me of anarchy (not trying to say they are the same thing, because they aren’t) because they both seem too idealistic, especially in instances of people who are dishonest and irresponsible. If everyone was honest or responsible enough, it would without a doubt be the system of choice for me.
To me, the things that make Libertarianism so unworkable are:
No taxes of any kind whatsoever. The government can and will collect all it needs through voluntary contributions from the citizenry. (No, it wouldn’t. I don’t think the government would collect even one-tenth of the revenue it would need to provide even minimal services.)
If you don’t PAY for police protection, you don’t GET police protection. (What if you can’t afford it? Would everyone in Libertarian USA be millionaires? And what would stop a criminal from finding out who didn’t pay their police contributions and go rob that person’s house?)
If you own a business you CAN discriminate by race, creed or color or so said our buddy Libertarian on another thread.
No public property, only private. There would have to be an exception to this rule, though: I mean, wouldn’t the government own the property it uses to build its offices?
And those are just the ones off the top of my head. I bet I can think of more later.
You guys are misrepresenting Libertarianism. First of all, there’s nothing in the Libertarian philosophy that says there can be no taxes of any kind. Second, it isn’t anarchy.
Here’s the most concise description of Libertarianism I can offer:
Most Libertarians believe that there are three proper functions of government:
[li]To maintain an army to protect the citizens against external agression.[/li][li]To maintain a police force to protect citizens from internal agression[/li][li]To maintain a court system to objectively settle disputes among citizens[/li]
To the extent that these functions need to be funded, taxes are FINE. Most Libertarians would argue that if the government stuck to these functions we wouldn’t need an income tax. Probably not, but we’d certainly need some kind of taxes, since the military budget alone is around 14% of the total federal budget.
The essense of the Libertarian philosophy is that it is NEVER right to INITIATE force against another person. You can defend yourself, but you can’t initiate it. That means there can be no victimless crimes, no ‘social engineering’ by force of law, no government interference in private market transactions.
That’s about it. Now, in the libertarian party there are fringe elements, (the anarchists on one side, and the Republican look-alikes on the other), but it’s no more fair to judge the Libertarian philosophy by pointing to the radical elements as it is to judge the democrats by pointing to Tom Hayden, or the Republicans by pointing to Gordon Liddy.
Scylla: this is a myth that has not been upheld in the court system. You can go to jail for failing to file.
If everyone were honest and responsible, any system would work great! Anarchy would be the most efficient, since no one would have to waste their time with government.
Actually, there are. About 3/4 of Libertarians (members of the Libertarian party) are what I believe they call minarchists - those who believe in limited government. 1/4 are Anarchists. These numbers come from a Libertarian FAQ which I cannot find the URL to.
I’ll save it for another thread, but no, you can’t go to jail for failing to file unless you haven’t opted out of the system, and you owe taxes.
If you’ve opted out you don’t have to file or pay.
You should be able to find documentation on this atthe IRS site, or with a search on the internet. Enough said for now, I don’t want to hijack this thread too
jodih and Amazing–
“If I thought it was a workable system…”?
…and our current system is…what?
The best-working system (of any type–mechanical, social, electronic, etc.) is that with the fewest parts. “The government which governs least governs best.” The government which doesn’t govern is quite possibly the best of all.
The main dispute I have with the Libertarians is that they seem to assume that the only force acting against personal liberty is domestic government. This assumption is clearly wrong. There are examples too numerous to mention of people losing their rights and liberties to foreign powers, private businesses, religious groups, criminal organizations, different ethnic groups, and of course other individuals. A strong government, controlled by the will of the people, is one of the few things capable of preventing these other forces from infringing on personal rights.
