The libertarian party...tell me about it.

So, for the past few months I've heard more and more about the libertarian party. In fact there is a libertarian party "club" starting to form at my local university.
From what I've heard it is the only party that truely idealizes the values set forth by our founding fathers. Allowing all types of freedoms, including the right to bear arms, the right to use drugs as you see fit, etc...

But I can't help but think there is something wrong with this seemingly perfect party. What is it? What can you guys tell me about this party? Good, bad, controversial? Inform me

This movement of freedom minded individuals we see in the country today spawned from the presidential campaign of a congressman from Texas by the name of Ron Paul. He represents constitutional, libertarian, and austroeconomic philosophies. FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM is his message...all kinds of it....Mises.org and campaignforliberty.com are both wonderful websites to reference to get an idea about what real libertarianism is.

Libertarianism: A brief overview

Libertarianism spawned from classical liberalism and the individualism movement which are ideologies that have existed for several centuries. Libertarianism was the basic ideology of the Founding Fathers and Framers of this nation, though there were some who held to the ancien régime of Britain--large, centralized state, mercantilism, regulation, central banking, etc. who would adopt the label of federalists.

Libertarianism is essentially founded upon axioms of natural rights, primarily: the non-aggression principle and the axiom of self-ownership. The non-aggression principle (NAP) is simply the idea that whenever aggression (not exclusive to aggression of the 'violent' persuasion) is initiated, this is an act of immorality; as to initiate aggression is to infringe upon the natural right of self-ownership (and the various 'rights' or 'freedoms' which extend from it) of another. The natural right of self-ownership simply means that, by virtue of being human, every single human has 100% ownership of themselves, their action and thus their labor. This axiom of self-ownership is known to be understood in natural law, and it is unquestionable as the axiom appeals to reason, logic and the alternatives opposed to 100% self-ownership are absurdities.

These principles are the foundation for all the libertarian ideology at large. Libertarians, however, do not all fall under an umbrella of similar thought on other issues. There are minarchist libertarians (extremely limited government) and anarchist libertarians (more commonly known as anarcho-capitalists--no formal government). Libertarians in general believe in and advocate a capitalist free-market, unregulated by any sort of centralized state, and subjective value theory. Libertarians believe this is the most efficient and (currently) the best path to widespread prosperity and creation of wealth. For one, it allows for their foundational principles, where as the opposing economic views amount to violations of these principles and natural rights. For two, libertarians contend that in absence of state-regulation, the free-market will naturally regulate itself as a result of human action. The science of human action (or human behavior, some might say) is known as praxeology in the libertarian ideology.

Libertarians largely identify with Austrian economic theory, which coincides and explains the above positions on economics. The Austrian school of economics is largely centered around the classical liberal economist, Ludwig von Mises, who has an institute founded in his name--the Ludwig von Mises Insitute.

The libertarian party became America's 'official' third-party in the 70s, though traditionally they have not received much mainstream attention in the established two-party system. Many libertarians have been, or are also, associated with the republican party, though there have also been a few in the democratic party as well.

Libertarians generally advocate: smallest possible government (if any government at all), market deregulation, individual liberty, personal privacy, non-interventionist foreign policy, free trade, decentralized banking, full-reserve banking, specie currency, no income tax (and low/no taxes in general), no welfare-state, no redistribution of wealth, and legalization of drugs (or at the very least, cannabis).

Notable persons include: John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, F.A. Hayek, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Milton Freidman, Robert Long, Ayn Rand, Lew Rockwell, Walter Block, Henry Hazlitt, Frederic Bastiat, Robert Nozick, Ron Paul, Thomas Woods and others.

Edited by Shade, 15 February 2010 - 10:04 PM.

Some libertarians have terrible environmental policies.

Some libertarians have terrible environmental policies.

It isn't in the businesses best interest to kill the environment because people would prefer to buy from environmentally friendly, sustainable businesses. That's why the green advertisements are being pushed so hard lately. The only reason we still have corps killing the environment is because competition isn't allowed.

And no, destructive policies wouldn't even be cheaper in the free market.

Some libertarians have terrible environmental policies.

Elaborate please. You think the government does a good job protecting the environment currently? Do you think that they're the only ones capable of protecting the environment?

Dear libertarians,

Should the truth be subject to market demands?

Dear libertarians,

Should the truth be subject to market demands?

What does this mean? This is quite vague.

This brief outline will give you most of the tools you need to hit the ground running as a freshly indoctrinated libertarian ideologue.
Go forth and proselytize!

Philosophy

-In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.

-Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and all Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.

-We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few will just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen to be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang.

-Government cannot own things because only individuals can own things. Except for corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage, and anything else we except but government.

-Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative, reasoning individualist.

-Parents cannot choose a government for their children any more than they can choose language, residence, school, or religion.

-Taxation is theft because we have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation.

-Magic incantations can overturn society and bring about libertopia. Sovereign citizenry! The 16th Amendment is invalid! States rights!

-Objectivist/Neo-Tech Advantage #69i : The true measure of fully integrated honesty is whether the sucker has opened his wallet. Thus sayeth the Profit Wallace. Zonpower Rules Nerdspace!

-The great Zen riddle of libertarianism: minimal government is necessary and unnecessary. The answer is only to be found by individuals.

Libertarian Party

-The Libertarian Party is well on its way to dominating the political landscape, judging from its power base of 100+ elected dogcatchers and other important officials after 25 years of effort.

-The "Party of Oxymoron": "Individualists unite!"

-Flip answers are more powerful than the best reasoned arguments, which is why so many libertarians are in important government positions.

-It's time the new pro-freedom libertarian platform was implemented; child labor, orphanages, sweatshops, poorhouses, company towns, monopolies, trusts, cartels, blacklists, private goons, slumlords, etc.

-Libertarianism "rules" Internet political debate the same way US Communism "ruled" pamphleteering.

-No compromise from the "Party of Principle". Justice, happiness, liberty, guns, and other good stuff come only from rigidly adhering to inflexible dogmas.

-Minimal government is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree.

-Government is "moving steadily in a libertarian direction" with every change libertarians approve of; no matter if it takes one step forward and two steps backwards.

-Yes, the symbol of the Libertarian Party is a Big Government Statue. It's not supposed to be funny or ironic!

Critiques Of Libertarianism: Libertarianism in One Lesson

For unopinionated facts about libertarianism, refer to my post. Yes, I do identify with libertarianism, but I kept my own opinions out of my post.

For the opinions of a high school math/science teacher about libertarianism, presented by a self-proclaimed socialist (an ideology which is almost universally rejected by libertarianism, and vice-versa), refer to smokinp's post.

What does this mean? This is quite vague.

Manufacturing Consent, basically. I think news organizations should be held to the same standards the scientific community is held to. Profiting from distorting the truth is abhorrent to me and I'm not convinced the invisible hand fixes it.

EDIT: And on a personal level, I think libertarianism is a fad (with regards to its bizarre upsurge of popularity on college campuses), like socialism and anarchism has been in the past. I agree with a lot of libertarianism (specifically, their thoughts on decentralization of power) but I tend to disagree with right libertarian economic views.

Edited by combatwombat, 15 February 2010 - 10:31 PM.

Manufacturing Consent, basically. I think news organizations should be held to the same standards the scientific community is held to.

So then you're against opinion, and the first amendment of the Constitution? Or am I misuderstanding your position?

Profiting from distorting the truth is abhorrent to me

Do you hold this same standard to everything, or just news media?

Libertarians are good on social issues, but not so great on economic issues.

For instance, things like social security, medicare, universal healthcare, etc, would all be gone under the libertarian form of politics.

Most people you will meet are social libertarians, but economic liberals. That means you believe in some form of government regulation in the markets, and taxes, and social entitlement programs, but you are for personal liberties for drugs, sex, and other taboo things.

This is why I can't associate with one party, all the time. Honestly, most of them have good ideas on some subjects, and others I completely disagree with.

I'd just like to point out that the Austrian economics I mentioned before is responsible for explaining the Austrian business-cycle theory, which is the only economic theory (which I'm aware of) that accurately accounts for, predicts, makes sense of and could arguably lessen the effects of (if not altogether prevent) the cycle of booms, busts and necessary recession/depressions that follow; including the most recent crisis and the recession we're now in, as well as the bubble which is being re-inflated.

Whether you find such things important to economics or not is a personal judgment call, I suppose.

For the opinions of a high school math/science teacher about libertarianism, presented by a self-proclaimed socialist (an ideology which is almost universally rejected by libertarianism, and vice-versa), refer to smokinp's post.

Bet you at the very least cracked a smile while you read it though...

Libertarians are good on social issues, but not so great on economic issues.

For instance, things like social security, medicare, universal healthcare, etc, would all be gone under the libertarian form of politics.

Most people you will meet are social libertarians, but economic liberals. That means you believe in some form of government regulation in the markets, and taxes, and social entitlement programs, but you are for personal liberties for drugs, sex, and other taboo things.

We don't have universal health care and social security + medicare are both insolvent. So, what exactly is bad about getting rid of those insolvent government programs?

How can you be for personal liberty, but at the same time want to interfere in a transaction between two consenting individuals?

Lastly, which government programs do you think are worth keeping? You think Social Security is a good idea? Do you think Medicare is working out well?

So then you're against opinion, and the first amendment of the Constitution? Or am I misuderstanding your position?

The latter. Free speech is obviously good. But misrepresenting opinion as fact is bad, and (if I may sound a tinge paranoid) the selling of a preconceived narrative by cherry picking some information and outright distorting some should have some strong negative consequences, and I fear laissez-faire economics isn't equipped to deal with this.

Do you hold this same standard to everything, or just news media?

It's a universal. Distorting the truth is just ... I mean, I consider reason to be the greatest human virtue, even if a lot of people are dumbfucks, and the perversion of reality for individual gain is completely antithetical to reason.

I'd just like to point out that the Austrian economics I mentioned before is responsible for explaining the Austrian business-cycle theory, which is the only economic theory (which I'm aware of) that accurately accounts for, predicts, makes sense of and could arguably lessen the effects of (if not altogether prevent) the cycle of booms, busts and necessary recession/depressions that follow; including the most recent crisis and the recession we're now in, as well as the bubble which is being re-inflated.

Whether you find such things important to economics or not is a personal judgment call, I suppose.

Emphasis on arguably, which I think applies to more about the Austrian school. Though admittedly, I'm fairly ignorant about economics and approach the issue philosophically based on human nature and my own, stupid idealism.

I try to stay out of economic discussions.

How can you be for personal liberty, but at the same time want to interfere in a transaction between two consenting individuals?

Necessity of action is just as coercive, if not moreso, than government interaction. I sincerely doubt an overwhelming majority of transactions are mutually consensual, though I'm open to the possibility this itself could be the result of government interference. I doubt it, though.

Edited by combatwombat, 15 February 2010 - 11:03 PM.

But misrepresenting opinion as fact is bad

Could you give me an example of someone misrepresenting opinion as fact? Personally, I believe there are true statements, and then there are false statements. If you can't distinguish between the two, I feel very bad for you.

Could you give me an example of someone misrepresenting opinion as fact? Personally, I believe there are true statements, and then there are false statements. If you can't distinguish between the two, I feel very bad for you.

"Vanilla ice cream is the best ice cream flavor."

This sentence is not falsifiable, because it's opinion, and the speaker is stupidly misrepresenting his or her opinion as an objective fact.

Did you seriously just state that there is no such thing as an opinion? Do you completely reject subjectivism?

"Vanilla ice cream is the best ice cream flavor."

This sentence is not falsifiable, because it's opinion, and the speaker is stupidly misrepresenting his or her opinion as an objective fact.

That sentence simply isn't true. It might be your favorite and thus "best" to you, but that doesn't make it the best ice cream flavor.