Why I am not a Libertarian.

[dutch508]

The below article is from About.com. My comments are in red.

Like most political platforms, the Libertarian Party platform is turgid, vague, and abstract. It also tends to be a little bit utopian in its approach, which can make it difficult to ascertain where the Party stands on specific issues facing the country right now.

This is not a specific criticism of the Libertarian Party, mind you; the Democratic and Republican party platforms are much, much more turgid (to the point where they can't be read in one sitting), much more vague (to the point where they often sound as if they're advocating the same policies), and much more abstract (relying on Mom-and-apple-pie patriotic rhetoric instead of concrete policy proposals). But the difference is that the Democratic and Republican parties have enough money to pay people to run campaigns that give us an idea of what the parties stand for.

The Libertarian Party doesn't have that much money, so I'm proud to present the world's shortest platform summary of the party that brought you the World's Shortest Political Quiz.

Fiscal Policy: Very right-libertarian. The Libertarian Party opposes taxation in pretty much all forms, and deals with the revenue loss by opposing entitlement programs in pretty much all forms. This means that people keep more of what they earn, but it also means that there is no social safety net. And ambitious new proposals--such as universal pre-kindergarten and universal health care--are obviously not compatible with this objective. Eh I am not too sure about this. No Taxes means more of my money for me- but what about public services for the good of the public, likes schools and hospitals? Some public taxes I think are required.

Corporations: Eliminate all federal subsidies to private corporations, as well as all antitrust laws. OK. I can live with that.

Public Services: Eliminate the Postal Service. Transfer all government services, from public schools to landfills, to private ownership. See my above. Where I think that some public services are good and needed, I don't think that all are. Could the post service be privatized and run better? Yeah...but then who would deliver my HooterLovers catalog?

Property Rights: Would restrict public domain to immediate public use, and sell or give away most public property to private owners. See my above. I think public parks are a good thing and I don't mind spending a bit of money so others can enjoy them.

Criminal Justice: Would eliminate all antidrug laws and legalize prostitution. Would end random police roadblocks. Uh....no.

Free Speech: Would abolish the FCC and allow private ownership of broadcast frequencies. Opposes all restriction of free speech, including free speech restricted in the name of national security. Again, no.

Church and State: Calls for reduced IRS regulation and monitoring of tax-exempt churches.

Second Amendment: Strongly opposes all gun control, as well as regulation of alternative weapon technologies (mace, Tasers, and so forth). eh... Some regulation is good- no felons with guns, etc.

The Draft: Calls for the abolition of the Selective Service System and amnesty for any citizen who has ever resisted the draft. Oh, I think all you little ****ers need at least two years nation service. 

Reproductive Rights Pro-choice, but opposes all federal funding of abortion and most federal entitlements for women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term, including the child tax credit. Opposes involuntary or fraudulent sterilization. ok.

LGBT Rights: Opposes "don't ask, don't tell." Believes that marriage is a private contract, and should yield no government benefits regardless of the gender of the partners. Hey, I don't care if you **** goats. Just don't think my church is gonna give you a party because of it.

Immigrants' Rights: Argues that borders should be open but surveilled--everyone who does not pose a threat to public health or national security should be allowed to enter the country legally. Would eliminate all federal benefits to undocumented immigrants. I think borders should be a ****ing Iron Wall. You get in if you are safe or ask nicely. No benifits other than a one way ticket home for the wall jumpers.

the rest is from the libertarian's website:

3.1    National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

If that means pulling our troops out of the world then no. We should kill the enemy on the enemy's soil- not ours.

3.3    International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny...we just won't do anything about it.

So, where I agree with a few of the Libertarian's viewpoints, I don't on a majority.

[Mr Mannn]

I'm not a libertarian because I never ever want to be mistaken for a Paul-tard. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Somethings are necessary evils.

I think a case can be made for the FDA considering it was born of a time when some merchants cut flour with chalk dust. I think defining what flour is made of would save both consumer and merchant from a shit-ton of litigation and improve the economy because people have an objective standard. I also think a COTUS argument could be made under the weights and measures clause.

Ditto things like the FCC. It's all well and good to say frequencies should be privately owned but who serves as the registration office so that Company A can broadcast on Frequency X at Wattage Y?

And yes, if water springs on your land you can pee in it if you want but what if your water runs off into the neighboring town's water supply? Who decides how much of an impact you're allowed to have on your neighbors? Many libertarians argue that the town could sue but some poeple/companies can inflict more damage than their bank accounts can cover.

And many social laws may involve "consent" but their effects are hardly private matters. Sorry libertarians but meth effects more than the user.

Don't get me started their whacky national defense ideas. These people could embarrass Neville Chamberlain.

[RightCoast]

True Libertarians (ie capitol T and capitol L) are really scary people, as in homosexual-goat-rape-is-ok-as-long-as-you-do-it-in-your-own-house type of scary.  Some of the basic principals are good but they usually go wayyyy overboard. That said; I tend to lean small 'l' libertarian on some issues and conservative on others.

[formerlurker]

Great job dutch.

[Carl]

I got into a discussion once on FR with a couple of hard core Libertarians that had taken things to such an extreme that what they were desiring was a lawless wild west anarchy.

They had a fantasy of no government,let the community police itself (of course in the delusion the good guys always win) with a survival of the fittest...the strongest being the last standing and always for the common good.

Combining that with their unrealistic ideals of isolationism which seems to relate strongest to abandoning Israel and their most fervent anti government rhetoric aimed at legalizing drugs I took the whole movement as a utopian liberalism that co opts some conservative elements to achieve its goals of garnering support.

I pretty much moved the whole thing to nutcase category inasmuch as one wishes to adhere to the official party platform.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I got into a discussion once on FR with a couple of hard core Libertarians that had taken things to such an extreme that what they were desiring was a lawless wild west anarchy.

They had a fantasy of no government,let the community police itself (of course in the delusion the good guys always win) with a survival of the fittest...the strongest being the last standing and always for the common good.

Combining that with their unrealistic ideals of isolationism which seems to relate strongest to abandoning Israel and their most fervent anti government rhetoric aimed at legalizing drugs I took the whole movement as a utopian liberalism that co opts some conservative elements to achieve its goals of garnering support.

I pretty much moved the whole thing to nutcase category inasmuch as one wishes to adhere to the official party platform.

I met one of those at protestwarrior.com. He was of the opinion that if he caught you on his lawn stealing his newspaper he had a right to shoot you dead. I asked how he would adjudicate between rightful and unlawful killing and he was of the opinion that if you couldn't defend yourself it was your own fault. I told him, "So much for grandma and I'm dusting off the deer rifle to take your dumb ass out."

He was not happy with me.

I seem to have that effect on people.

[Carl]

I met one of those at protestwarrior.com. He was of the opinion that if he caught you on his lawn stealing his newspaper he had a right to shoot you dead. I asked how he would adjudicate between rightful and unlawful killing and he was of the opinion that if you couldn't defend yourself it was your own fault. I told him, "So much for grandma and I'm dusting off the deer rifle to take your dumb ass out."

He was not happy with me.

I seem to have that effect on people.

Took a while to find but the old thread and where I jumped into it..the back and forth goes on for quite a while.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1626219/posts?page=81#81

Ahhhhh....the good old days.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Took a while to find but the old thread and where I jumped into it..the back and forth goes on for quite a while.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1626219/posts?page=81#81

Ahhhhh....the good old days.

See, that's what I don't understand. They want some Nietzschien hell-hole for a planet. The law is there for people who are not able to protect themselves (nevermind getting ambushed or murdered by someone you know/trust). Got a new girlfriend? Off the wife; it'll be her fault for not shooting first...in her sleep...with a pillow over her face...after being drugged.

It's also funny how they peddle this shit and then speak glowingly of the founders who were all molded by a paradigm of transcendent, objective morality.

I think they still want to play out some fantasy RPG of brave new world but in reality they'd be the first to be eaten.

[Javelin]

See, that's what I don't understand. They want some Nietzschien hell-hole for a planet. The law is there for people who are not able to protect themselves (nevermind getting ambushed or murdered by someone you know/trust). Got a new girlfriend? Off the wife; it'll be her fault for not shooting first...in her sleep...with a pillow over her face...after being drugged.

It's also funny how they peddle this shit and then speak glowingly of the founders who were all molded by a paradigm of transcendent, objective morality.

I think they still want to play out some fantasy RPG of brave new world but in reality they'd be the first to be eaten.

When I see the word Libertarian I often think of the word Anarchist.  I believe Anarchist would be a better definition.  The more I learn about them the more I find they come from the left more often than the right.  Hence why I often call them former or transplant and even perhaps reformed democrats.  I have met some that are downright scary.  While they preach the Utopian society often enough some of the symbolism they associate with often includes symbols from various supremacist organizations or that are associated in historical supremacy symbolism.

It would be nice if the ideal world could be created, yet the socialist movement already tried it from the other side of the extreme and that failed as well.  In order to maintain a moral society there must be a defined right and wrong.  In order to maintain order within a society there must be reasonable law that society lives by.  I do agree that it should be minimal in nature to not infringe upon freedom.  Yet to define freedom does not mean you have the right to impose yourself upon your fellow man whether its, as depicted above, peeing in your creek before the water flows downtown or shooting someone just because he is on your land.

I had a neighbor once that was a strong libertarian.  The more discussions I had with her the more convinced I became she was a complete nutcase.  It was not a matter of difference of opinion.  It was more like something was wrong with her mind.  They do not think in logical patterns nor are they capable of understanding real issues within the world.  It is almost as if they have what the Bible depicts as a "reprobate mind" if you will.  While they would allow drugs to be legalized they say nothing of the implications to other people, children, a drugged out mother having a crack baby or how chaotic of a society they would create with their beliefs.

In my opinion they are some of the most extreme left.  What I mean is when they realized that socialism could not achieve the desired effects many hope for they then look and find that anarchy can.  Its all still based upon the common good, being fair, allowing each individual to grow like the real flower they are in their own way hippie crap.

[formerlurker]

When I see the word Libertarian I often think of the word Anarchist.  I believe Anarchist would be a better definition.  The more I learn about them the more I find they come from the left more often than the right.  Hence why I often call them former or transplant and even perhaps reformed democrats.  I have met some that are downright scary.  While they preach the Utopian society often enough some of the symbolism they associate with often includes symbols from various supremacist organizations or that are associated in historical supremacy symbolism.

It would be nice if the ideal world could be created, yet the socialist movement already tried it from the other side of the extreme and that failed as well.  In order to maintain a moral society there must be a defined right and wrong.  In order to maintain order within a society there must be reasonable law that society lives by.  I do agree that it should be minimal in nature to not infringe upon freedom.  Yet to define freedom does not mean you have the right to impose yourself upon your fellow man whether its, as depicted above, peeing in your creek before the water flows downtown or shooting someone just because he is on your land.

I had a neighbor once that was a strong libertarian.  The more discussions I had with her the more convinced I became she was a complete nutcase.  It was not a matter of difference of opinion.  It was more like something was wrong with her mind.  They do not think in logical patterns nor are they capable of understanding real issues within the world.  It is almost as if they have what the Bible depicts as a "reprobate mind" if you will.  While they would allow drugs to be legalized they say nothing of the implications to other people, children, a drugged out mother having a crack baby or how chaotic of a society they would create with their beliefs.

In my opinion they are some of the most extreme left.  What I mean is when they realized that socialism could not achieve the desired effects many hope for they then look and find that anarchy can.  Its all still based upon the common good, being fair, allowing each individual to grow like the real flower they are in their own way hippie crap.

Excellent post - very well put.

[formerlurker]

I met one of those at protestwarrior.com. He was of the opinion that if he caught you on his lawn stealing his newspaper he had a right to shoot you dead. I asked how he would adjudicate between rightful and unlawful killing and he was of the opinion that if you couldn't defend yourself it was your own fault. I told him, "So much for grandma and I'm dusting off the deer rifle to take your dumb ass out."

He was not happy with me.

I seem to have that effect on people.

Lol.   Nothing nauseates me more than people who join a website only to spend their time H5 each other, always saying the right thing, yada yada yada, in some desperate attempt to be liked.... by complete strangers no less.    I join because I enjoy healthy debate, articles that are posted that I sometimes may not see elsewhere, and reading opinions of others which I may not have considered before.  I, for the most part, am true to myself and will just throw it out there -- I care little if it is the popular opinion or not.  There are some extremely intelligent posters here who I enjoying reading very much, you MSB are one of them.  I find your posting style to be delicious.   Don't ever change.

That said, Libertarians have a tough time debating reality.   I have yet to come  across one who doesn't turn out to be an absolute puke with the mentality of a 16 year old.

[Chump]

The Libertarian platform is for the most part unreasonable, specifically in relation to foreign policy.  The idea that we can isolate ourselves and still provide for a national defense is based on an antiquated idea of warfare, and really, reality itself.

The Draft: Calls for the abolition of the Selective Service System and amnesty for any citizen who has ever resisted the draft. Oh, I think all you little ****ers need at least two years nation service.   

   Plenty of countries out there for you to go enjoy then.

The rest of your objections, with the exception of foreign policy, amount to you accepting "necessary evils" because it's OK with you.  Big deal.  What if it's not OK with me?

[TheSarge]

I got into a discussion once on FR with a couple of hard core Libertarians that had taken things to such an extreme that what they were desiring was a lawless wild west anarchy.

They had a fantasy of no government,let the community police itself (of course in the delusion the good guys always win) with a survival of the fittest...the strongest being the last standing and always for the common good.

Combining that with their unrealistic ideals of isolationism which seems to relate strongest to abandoning Israel and their most fervent anti government rhetoric aimed at legalizing drugs I took the whole movement as a utopian liberalism that co opts some conservative elements to achieve its goals of garnering support.

I pretty much moved the whole thing to nutcase category inasmuch as one wishes to adhere to the official party platform.

I think the very first thread I got into at FR was with some of these idiots.  Talking about how everything from the frings on the flag to the military was a direct violatoin of the Constitution.

Buncha effin retards is what they were.

[Chris_]

In my opinion they are some of the most extreme left.  What I mean is when they realized that socialism could not achieve the desired effects many hope for they then look and find that anarchy can.  Its all still based upon the common good, being fair, allowing each individual to grow like the real flower they are in their own way hippie crap.

What?  I think you're not fully understanding the philosophy.  It's not based upon the common good, being fair etc.  The point is that the common good & fairness will naturally result from a Libertarian society.  

Most libertarians realize you cannot go without law & order.  There must be a justice system and government.  However, certain things that are considered criminal offenses (drug use, prostitution, etc) should not be, and more government agencies should be privatized.  Clearly a society wouldn't do well with a privatized police force.  However a privatized school system, post office, etc would be great and only serve to create common good and fairness.  

TRUE libertarians uphold the truest meaning of COTUS.  TRUE Republicans do as well.   Too many Dems & Repubs have a knee-jerk reaction to Libertarianism (which is, really, just Republican philosophy in its purest sense).  I think it's just because they need something to whine about and someone to punch.  

Face it, most people are sheep, and too frightened to really let go of big government.  So why do you worry at all? As if Libertarians are really going to get anywhere with so many frightened sheep out there.

[USA4ME]

I don't have an issue with Libertarians, per se.  I fact I find myself agreeing with several things they say quite often.  I just think on some issues they go too far.  Holding that belief doesn't make me into some type of "big gov't" lover who can't let go, it just means I see a legitimate need for gov't to step in where they don't.  Gov't has a legitimate function, it's just doesn't involve things like making sure everyone has food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare.  Things like that are up to individual citizens to band together and help each other if for some reason there are those who are going without or have a need they can't meet alone.  It does involve discouraging people from taking drugs, upholding other moral laws like traditional marriage, and yes, even collecting taxes for things like providing for the common defense, police, fire, and roads.

.

[TheSarge]

I just think on some issues they go too far.  Holding that belief doesn't make me into some type of "big gov't" lover who can't let go, it just means I see a legitimate need for gov't to step in where they don't. 
.

The arrogant belief that they are the "true Conservatives" is rather distasteful as well.

[Chris_]

I don't have an issue with Libertarians, per se.  I fact I find myself agreeing with several things they say quite often.  I just think on some issues they go too far.  Holding that belief doesn't make me into some type of "big gov't" lover who can't let go, it just means I see a legitimate need for gov't to step in where they don't.  Gov't has a legitimate function, it's just doesn't involve things like making sure everyone has food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare.  Things like that are up to individual citizens to band together and help each other if for some reason there are those who are going without or have a need they can't meet alone.  It does involve discouraging people from taking drugs, upholding other moral laws like traditional marriage, and yes, even collecting taxes for things like providing for the common defense, police, fire, and roads.

.

Sir you may as well be a Libertarian.  BTW I agree people should be discouraged from taking drugs, upholding their own morals and supporting common defense.  I just believe that the government shouldn't be the ones mandating the above (at figurative and literal gunpoints no less).   Apocalyptic madness won't erupt if the people are left to their own support.    

And...Tx - Libertarians aren't the only TRUE conservatives.  TRUE Republicans are as well.  As you can see from the above discourse, both are much the same with only a small difference in philosophy. 

[Carl]

The arrogant belief that they are the "true Conservatives" is rather distasteful as well.

Especially when either directly or by default they adopt so many of the lefts positions.

[Chris_]

Especially when either directly or by default they adopt so many of the lefts positions.

What?  explain yourself, please?

[formerlurker]

Come on Bully, sheep?  really?

What?  I think you're not fully understanding the philosophy.  It's not based upon the common good, being fair etc.  The point is that the common good & fairness will naturally result from a Libertarian society.  

This is where reality is just completely lost in the equation.   Utopian dreams.  

[Carl]

What?  explain yourself, please?

Abortion,as you mentioned legalized prostitution and drugs.
Take a wander over to the DUmp and you will see that they are pretty high on the lefts priority list too.
Isolationism with an a special focus on the "evil" of Israel being another.

[formerlurker]

Sir you may as well be a Libertarian.  BTW I agree people should be discouraged from taking drugs, upholding their own morals and supporting common defense.  I just believe that the government shouldn't be the ones mandating the above (at figurative and literal gunpoints no less).   Apocalyptic madness won't erupt if the people are left to their own support.    

Cause there are so many countries we can prop up as example where those "who are left to their own support" just thrived and lived the dream baby.  

[formerlurker]

Abortion,as you mentioned legalized prostitution and drugs.
Take a wander over to the DUmp and you will see that they are pretty high on the lefts priority list too.
Isolationism with an a special focus on the "evil" of Israel being another.

I think Isolationism is the most compelling argument that TRUE Libertarians (<---- they should think about copyrighting that cool catch phrase) are 1) out of touch with reality; 2) never learned a damn from history; and 3) dabble dangerously close to the extreme left.  

[Splashdown]

Abortion,as you mentioned legalized prostitution and drugs.
Take a wander over to the DUmp and you will see that they are pretty high on the lefts priority list too.
Isolationism with an a special focus on the "evil" of Israel being another.

There is something to be said for a measure of "social" conservatism. Abortion is just plain wrong. Therefore, it should be illegal. I can't condone legal drug use and prostitution, either. That's where libertarians and I part ways.