Why are you a Libertarian?
I’m for as much individual freedom possible and still have a civil society. For that, we need limited government and a legal system to settle disputes that would otherwise be settled by violence.
I’m not “a Libertarian”.
Most libertarians are minarchist rather than anarchist. That works very well. Freedom works. Minimum power means less to be bought, unlike our present system.
I believe in the constitution. Democrats and Republicans only care about the constitution when it benefits them.
Because I’m philosophically and morally opposed to the aggressive use of violence.
I’m not! We need regulations.
I didn’t know that libertarians were against all regulations. Are they anarchists?
They could be. In general, they’re for less regulations.
Yes. I can see that. Definitely for less regulations. More freedom.
I am absolutely NOT a Libertarian. I could not be one, because I do not believe that it is right to allow people the freedom to pursue personal pleasures that will definitely or potentially harm others. Because of this stance, I am against abortion in all but the very rarest circumstances, against smoking but especially in the presence of children who cannot get away from it, the use of marijuana or any other mind-altering drugs, including alcohol, while caring for children or operating a motor vehicle, etc. This puts me totally at odds with the Libertarian Party and idiots like Gary Johnson. I have far more respect for moderate Libertarians like Austin Peterson.
Libertarians are opposed to abortion exceptions to criminal statute as well.
As far as drugs, alcohol, etc., that’s the business of the individual and no one else’s. You can be morally opposed to their recreational use, but as a Christian you should not support violence as a means to stop others from using them.
Tom, I’d also argue that the use of the power of the state to impose desirable social norms capitulates one's duty to convince people to observe them and proclaims their faith is too puny to overcome the evil.
I’d remind you of the Christians in Rome, overcoming all the rumors, and persecutions and becoming the norm through example.
Resorting to force is a disincentive for people to embrace Christianity. You understand that. "You’re gonna force me to do this or that? Oh yeah?"
I am no fan of Gary Johnson either. He was a poor advocate.
The problem I have with the thought processes of my former associates and friends in the LP is the near universal atheism, their expressed disdain for religion thinking it a crutch for the weak. It is thoroughly at odds with all their efforts at making change because without a supernatural element to existence, there is no meaning and all effort toward some "good" is made ridiculous.
“ I could not be one, because I do not believe that it is right to allow people the freedom to pursue personal pleasures that will definitely or potentially harm others.”
I think that is actually against the platform of the libertarian party. Freedom as long as it doesn’t harm or take the freedom of someone else. Am I close? Anyone else want to chime in?
That word "potential" or "potentially" is especially dangerous as it can be used to control anything and everything and promote despotism.
I said "potentially" because a drunk driver can get home without killing people, but the likelihood of his causing a fatal crash is much higher than that of a sober person.
I get that, Tom, but how does the law do any good? When I was drinking too much it never deterred me. I know of only one person it ever did. After being caught the fifth time driving drunk and without a license, he was stuck in an absolutely awful maximum security prison because the one he would have served time in was full. That scared him into being a tee totaler, so then he switched to another habit, compulsive gambling. People try to outlaw that too, to no good effect.
Good point, Mark. Maybe what we need is mandatory ignition-lock breathalyzers. What do you think about that?
Thanks Tom. I think technology has advanced to the point of making it feasible, and it would be a reasonable requirement for the privilege of accessing government roads. I would hope those who think ingesting alcohol is a sin, even as their own guts constantly make it, wouldn’t prevail. But your proposed solution is reasonable. I’d expect nothing less.
I’m not a libertarian because I’m a pragmatic. Libertarianism is a stupid idea that has been proven unsuccessful every time.
First of all, it is not an absolutist thing. Wanting personal freedom, lack of statist mentality...where did that fail?
If you are 100% for that, no restrictions... (that is real libertarianism), that is a prehistoric mentality that belongs in the history books, next to socialism, as failed systems.
Most people in America that call themselves libertarians, are not really libertarians. They just use it as a talking point because “freedom” and “personal responsibility” are terms that sound awesome. They are like “equality” for the left.
Unfortunately, we need rules and regulations. We need borders and taxes. That’s if we want to have a prosperous society.
I think that the modern libertarian party is more of a live and let live ideal than complete and 100% anarchism. Which we know doesn’t work anywhere except in pirate communities. Even then there’s a ruthless leader.
Are you saying they are LINOs?
The thing is that they are extremist enough to damage the country (and even the world)
As I said, it is not an absolutist thing. Face it, the nanny state sucks.
The nanny state sucks but libertarians take it too far. For example, Gary Johnson wants no tax for corporations. That’s not plausible.
But what I’m most concerned about is their foreign policy. Their isolationism mentality is dangerous. It would create a vacuum and who knows who is going to fill it.
There should be zero corporate taxes in the Pat they get passed through to the consumer 100%.
We now are hyper interventionists. Just back it off to us interests.
Yes. I agree with you.
All taxes are ultimately paid by the people
Having a stable world is in the best interest of America. That’s why we have to intervene. Plus if we start with the isolationist mentality, someone would step up and become the world leader. China and Russia are salivating for the role. Just like when Trump pulled out of Syria. Fifteen minutes later, they were already there.
And both countries want to expand. Should we allow that to happen?
The Russians were already there. Mostly in the capital and not out there in the country.
chinto, most libertarians are minarchist rather than anarchist. That works very well. Freedom works. Minimum power means less to be bought, unlike our present system.
My primary political motive is as much freedom as possible stopping just short of anarchy.
Free market, tiny government, victimless offenses all legal from smoking pot to public nudity.
For your own sake, I’d advise you not to evel call your ideology a “big L” ever again lmfao
Is this a threat?
No, lmao. Just calling your ideology a loser isn’t exactly good. Funny as hell though
I’m not, thank God. I used to be ome though
I accept the far or alt right but stay big L so far 😎
Why? The majority of people can’t be trusted. Look at all the shit that’s going on in the world and tell me people need MORE ability to commit crimes and just make the world a worse place in general
I'm all for law and order but only if there's a victim.
Speed limit for example.
On highways, none, think Autobahn.
Until retards go 100 and lose control of their car, killing a family of 4. The reason the autobahn isn’t like that is because it’s so incredibly small
8,000 miles isn't small 😎
Oh it’s way bigger than I thought lol. Still though, “it is simply not true that there is no speed limit on the freeway. There is no general speed limit, but most stretches of the Autobahn do have individual speed limits. Only a few long-distance stretches between cities truly don't have a speed”
There should be a limit at the end of that quote lol