Are you a Libertarian?
Yes, not the Ron Paul kind though, more the Noam Chomsky kind. 😄
Technically yes but I don't really consider myself one at heart since I always vote liberal.
Both political parties serve the same people.One need only turn on the tv or open a newspaper to see that American democracy is a sham-a corporate theatre designed not to lead the people but to pacify them,and to protect the profit of their masters.
Well, apparently only 93% of libertarians are libertarians. Hmmm.
My exact thoughts.
I'm pretty socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but I am not a libertarian, I'm a registered Republican and always will be. I'd rather reform my party to get back to what I believe it should be than give up and forfeit it to the fringes.
Don't blame me. I would have voted for Ron Pail. (If stupid Florida let me and... If I was old enough...)
I like how 7% of the libertarians aren't libertarian. I think they read the question as "are you a librarian".
I'm a registered republican with strong libertarian views. The question I not ask if I was registered as a libertarian.
How are 6% of libertarians not libertarians...?
...............Why yes I am
What are all these libertarians doing on the government-created internet?
Was google, show of hands, your smart phone or the modem giving you your internet a government invention?
Not specifically, of course. Gov did create GPS. So, is your point that business has benefitted enormously thanks to being able to build upon a government-created platform? haha. You make a great case for not being libertarian. Thank you
Huh ? Since when did the gov own the Internet? It is a mass of electrical connections held by various ISP's. Sure some scientists invented it and they were paid by the gov but truth is entrepreneurs took it over long ago. Ever hear of AOL?
Erm... The Internet was totally a government program.
Why are 6% of libertarians saying no?
Oh man I was just about to ask the same question. What's up with that?
I used to think my views might be considered Libertarian; after all, I'm not just an Independent, I'm a GDI. Until I saw how (so-called) Libertarians vote on SoH.
I'm a libertarian but not necessarily a Libertarian (although I am registered as such, so I suppose I actually am the big L kind).
Alcohol is good though, I mean come on font dis on the good time alcohol brings
No, that is the reasoning BEHIND your views. Doesn't change the views themselves I could come up with my own bs manifesto for liberals and call it complex. 1) all people are equal but have not been given equal opportunity. 2) History has shown that
It has many things to recommend it but overall it's very naive about human nature and the power of corporations.
Aside from the drugs 'n hookers, I'm pretty much with the Libertarians.
That's funny those are the only two reasons I could see myself supporting them...
Apparently, 6% of Libertarians are not Libertarian.
we don't have to conform to your labels!
Argument against libertarians always goes like this:
Idiot- libertarian world is scary!
Idiot- I don't know, the tv box told me that. I assume everyone will be eating each other?
Don't forget, Rooooooooooaaaaaddddsss?!?!?!?
The political filters are confusing me
Every libertarian I meet seems to have completely different views aside from having a hard-on for states' rights. It's almost as if they think state governments are somehow less corrupt. Honestly I think the party is a joke.
It's easier to run for state office, or to reform a state, then it is to reform the entire country
As a libertarian allow me to clean that up. Those who are all hot over "states rights" are former republicans and neo-conservatives who have hijacked the libertarian party. I apologize for their behavior and lack of true political knowledge.
Former republicans yes, neo-cons no.
We are libertarians who follow the philosophy of Locke and Montesquieu
If you want followers, contribute to discussion and people will follow you. Just give it time :)
How are 5% libertarians, not?
They are mavericks! They even want the freedom to choose not to be identified as libertarians. Don't question it.
Libertarian ideals just make sense today. BO and Junior have shifted the narrative so far in the authoritarian/big government column, a shift the other way, focusing on Freedom/Liberty is long overdue.
In the American sense of the word, no. In the international sense, yes. Everywhere but the US, a libertarian is an anarchist or extreme leftist. All forms of authority, including governments, corporations, and religion, are illegitimate. (IMAO)
If you're going to call yourself libertarian have the decency to register as one. Otherwise you're just another on the fence moron.
against gay rights, against abortion, for some sort of amnesty, pro legal marijuana, less military, against death penalty, want welfare and Medicare but reforms. pro privatize education. what am i??
Whew! A non-voter?? There are literally zero candidates in any party for you to vote for!
You're a bigot.
damn, I was going to say something nice bc you're a steelers fan but I can't because you've made me more ok with moving away from that area. I love Pittsburgh but dammit there sure are racist, bigoted, people in that area
not sure what made me racist. clarify: for gay unions but not marriages. but some repub want welfare and other social programs completely removed but i realize they actually do some good.
How is a union different from a marriage?
how can you say the words "against gay rights"? I can understand not wanting same sex marriages, but being against gay rights altogether is pretty terrible.
good point, i mistakenly used rights and in my mind meet marriage. thanks for having me clarify
You're just a plain independent.
No offense meant by that. Apologize if taken wrongly by anyone.
Says the guy who only wants OTHERS to share (the rich). That doesn't make you selfish though, that just makes you a hypocritical doooosh
Can someone explain why only 94 percent of libertarians said yes :/
I lean Libertarian and have that listed on SOH, but I'm a registered Independent on my voter registration.
Makes sense then
I have some libertarian leanings, but I am not a true Libertarian.
What? Where did this guy come from? Space trolls.
Can someone explain to me civilly what is the difference between a Libertarian and a Republican? I was having an argument with someone and I swear he's Libertarian and he says he's Tea Party/Republican.
Republicans don't approve of some of Ls positions. Ls want the federal drug schedule abolished as well as most other federal institutions like DoE, the fed, FCC, and NSA. They are also (by and large, not all) isolationist when it comes to the DoD.
libertarian philosophy is based on three things:
1) The primary belief is the Non-Aggression Principle, which is the belief that any act of aggression is inherently immoral and illegitimate.
2) The belief that all humans are on an equal authoritative plane, and that no human is inherently more valuable than other.
3) Every human owns himself, and may not be owned by others.
What this means in practice is that no one may be governed against his will and that no victimless acts may be criminalized.
Libertarians believe "victimless" crimes includes pornography and prostitution, which is idiotic because they don't pay attention to what really goes on with human trafficking.
Kidnapping is obviously not victimless. That's just silly to claim that they are.
Prostitution and pornography by consenting adults should not be illegal. A third party has no authority over that transaction.
Heres a legitimate generalized answer, without particular policies and opinions:
Dems are socially liberal, fiscally liberal.
Reps are socially conservative, fiscally conservative
Libertarians are a mix - Socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.
That's not true. libertarians are neither socially liberal not fiscally conservative; it's an entirely different paradigm.
I know you like to imagine you're on a completely different paradigm, but libertarians are defined as liberal social policy and conservative economic policy. You want more freedom for people and corporations.
In a very shallow understanding, perhaps it would appear as such, but in reality that is not the case. You should read my statements above for an understanding of what libertarianism is.
There is far more to philosophy than a simple slider between Republicans and Democrats.
That unbridled capitalism severely hurts a majority of citizens and therefor requires modest regulation. 3) The government is not bad when it works FOR the good of the people not for political and corporate interests. Look how complex!
Point 2 of your view often conflicts with conservative policy. People in corporations automatically have more authority and power by right of their position. That's why ideals don't equal policy. I interpret #2 very differently .
The things you list are not philosophical beliefs, they are opinions of practicality. Liberals do have their own set of philosophical beliefs, though, as do conservatives. All philosophies do, it's not just a slider as I stated before.
People in corporations do not have more inherent authority. The CEO of Samsung can't just walk up to a stranger on the street and tell them what to do with any legitimacy.
Also, don't make the mistake of confusing power with authority.
You're in denial if you think power and money don't bring authority. A higher economic and social position inherently has more authority. If a billionaire on the street tells you to do something you will be much more likely to do it.
No, it brings more power, not authority. You're getting the two confused.
Legitimacy is an ideal far removed from practicality and the real world. Underlying ideals mean nothing to others. Your actions are what count (votes) in a democracy. The philosophies you've listed don't necessarily inform policy in one direction.
That's true to an extent, but it doesn't alter the reality behind it.
Liberty, you apparently have a misconception of what libertarian actually means. In the political diamond, libertarians are the top piece mixing liberal social beliefs with conservative fiscal.
And the bottom of the diamond is socialist - socially conservative and fiscally liberal. We all know what the right and left is. These are by definition and cant be disputed.
If the primary belief is non-aggression, then why are the libertarians on here all so gosh darn aggressive?
Haha, aggression as in the initiation of force, not just stern words, haha.
No, but I'm a Librarian! Lol
The Libertarian ideals are conservative to anarchist. Whoever tried to make the argument that (Modern) Libertarians are an even mix of (Modern) Liberals and Conservatives needs to think about it for like 10 secs.
1/20 libertarians aren't libertarian...
And 7-10% of everyone else is.
If your not, then you are the problem
Honestly a true libertarian society is scary.
A lot of Libertarians are well aware of that. XD
What's scary about it? Every state makes their own rules. Cali can have socialized everything, red states privatized everything. Everyone gets what want from their own state.
Moon only a radical libertarian society. A more moderate one would be fine.
It may have been but it had a different natural cause. There was and still is a cause for every change in temperature (from ice ages to points where the arctic was subtropical),and we are the main cause now. Case closed.
A true libertarian society doesn't mean state makes all their rules and laws. What if a state became a totalitarian state that doesn't mean libertarian.
A true libertarian state is free for all. You take care of yourself. You want a road you Build it or pay someone. You want protection you provide it or pay someone to provide it. You want education you yeah it or you pay for it.
In a true libertarian society the only thing the government provides is national security against other nations. Other than that everyone is on their own!
There is a true libertarian and libertarians like me who believe gov't has a place. I don't agree with the scope and size of the fed, but see a place for govt on a state level to step in and meet the needs of its state.
In this way, I'm not a true libertarian, but like a democrat in libertarian clothing. A lot of Ls disagree about abortion and other issues, but my only wish as a libertarian is that each state make its own path. Top down mgmt ignores microissues.
Moon you are describing an anarchist society, or far extreme libertarian state. Just like calling democrats total socialists. A more moderate libertarian state isnt any of those things and causes fiscally sound govt practices w/o persecuting everyone
True Liberalism does not mean communism. This why I said a true libertarian society.
I can not subscribe to a party that refutes the basic science of global warming.
HaHaHaHa.... Oh, sorry, I thought you were joking about that global warming thing.
Libertarians don't have a collective opinion of that, they merely wish to allow states to regulate themselves.
How bout global cooling?
2005 was the hottest year on record while 2009 was second. The last decade was the hottest on record. I don't think that equates to global cooling.
In the age of the dinosaurs it was so hot ice caps were nonexistant.
But you concede the Libertarian party has no collective opinion on global warming?
The thing is; they must deny it if they want to keep our personal freedoms increasing. The dilemma they are facing is: accept global warming and have people lose their freedoms (we won't stop it any other way) or deny it and avoid the problem.
I don't know, I'm neither republican or democrat. I don't know what the libertarians are all about but I've been told I sound like one.
At the moment I'm not identifying myself with any parties.
In short, libertarians are basically for smaller government.
I need to research independent and libertarian parties because they sound appealing to me.
I'm tired of the two main parties, I think this country needs a big change not just the same guy in a different suit.
I agree. Independent isn't really a party; it's more like people without a party. isidewith.com has a quiz you can take to see how much you agree with the different parties. It's pretty neat!
My understanding is that independents are just that... independent, they don't claim a side but usually vote depending on what party they agree with most. Libertarians are about limiting the government to the constitution and allowing people to have the rights given to them thanks to that document.
Read the party platform here, its only 9 pages.
Antony with questions should watch a few episodes of Stossell on Fox Business. You can also google Reason Magazine.
While that may be the official view, many libertarians I know (myself included) disagree on a few of those things. But if you agree with most of those things, you're probably somewhere on the libertarian spectrum.
Democrats have all the ugly women & Republicans have all the Good looking women. No wonder why Democrats have such sour attitudes.
Hot people don't have to use their brains. BURN!
I don't adhere to any party.
Then you are an independent, right.
I'm conservative. I agree with a lot of libertarian ideas except for drugs. Why ecstasy, heroine, and meth should be legal, I'll never understand.
We think people should be allowed to do as they please as long as they don't harm others. Drug usage only harms you.
Puppy person; that's nice in theory, but not the reality
Nope. Meth (and a few others) harms everyone that gets near it. And people hopped up on ecstasy aren't exactly rational in their behavior.
Let's say you harm someone else while on drugs. We still have laws that say harming others is illegal. And just because you do drugs doesn't mean you automatically hurt others. Drugs themselves are harmless.
It's when you abuse them that's the issue. But that should be left to the user.
Libertarianism seems pretty close to anarchy and a Libertarian friend of mine is the one who says that
It depends. There's a spectrum within libertarianism. I consider myself minarchist libertarian and it's closer to anarchism than the two main parties. It is different from anarchism though.
I understand that point of view but I just can't get on board and say "yep, let's legalize ALL the drugs". I think it creates a dangerous environment.
Not to mention, having a black market increases crime and funds gangs. With illegal drugs, you are guaranteed crime vs. possible danger with legal drugs.
And here is exactly why the L party is a joke.
I'm sorry; I made logical arguments and you replied by calling an entire group of people "a joke." Please explain how I am the "joke" here.
Ok. Other people made logical arguments that people under the influence of drugs could harm others. You replied with the usual L party brainwash rhetoric. You. Are. A. Joke.
Brainwash rhetoric? Again, you aren't providing arguments. Other commenters on this thread were and I respect their opinions. Provide a counterargument if you wish, but calling people's views a joke doesn't contribute to discussion at all.
Although being on drugs doesn't automatically mean you will hurt someone, there is a higher chance of them doing so. It a well thought out theory you have, but I'm thinking that the crime will increase with that change more than without it.
Those same arguments could be applied to banning alcohol. Crime went up when we tried that, and crime goes down when we legalize drugs. I can pull up some sources if you'd like.
For fun, lets replace "drugs" in this convo with "guns". Go!
The thing is, drugs like this were never legalized before in the united states in our past history. Alcohol was and a greater mass (compared to drugs) of people liked it and wanted more. We shouldn't legalize the drugs because once the populace has
Tried it, we won't be able to reban it, without ending up with the same effects of banning alcohol.
Sorry, my response was to thatguy.
Other countries have legalized drugs and crime rates dropped.
What makes those countries similar to the United States enough to compare? Another thing I'm worried about is; won't there be an increase of people waiting outside our schools trying to make our children addicts? Is that a risk we are willing to take
Back to the spectrum within libertarianism, all Ls want to do away with the federal drug classification system, not all want all drugs legal. Let the states decide what's best for their own state.
Maybe more people will try it at first. But by legalizing it, it will make it seem less appealing, especially with young adults and teens.
Explain how it will be less appealing. People will be like "It's legal! Let's try it!". If people try it and stick with it then the number of users may increase, not decrease.
Forbidden things tend to be more appealing and romanticized. It's like how telling a teenager not to do something makes them more likely to do it. Legalizing it would "take the fun out of it" for teens who do drugs to be cool or rebellious.
Wow that's factual.
Things that are bad we need to keep illegal, legalizing says that is is right and on. Not good
So everything bad should be illegal even if it doesn't affect anyone else?
these drugs may break up families. Thats effecting a lot of people right there. You be against this if your son or daughter became a drug addict and died from an overdose,but since these drugs "doesn't affect anyone" you think we should legalize it.
I know they can affect people. That's why I don't use them. But it should be my choice if it doesn't directly and physically harm others. Divorce affects families too. Should that be illegal?
Just letting people do whatever have hell they want us why this country has gone to crap; the I want and parents won't say no generation
So the government should be more like a strict parent? Say what you will about parents, but the government isn't supposed to be our parents.
I just want to interject and say that there are plenty of legal drugs prescribed to us that break up families. Painkillers and antidepressants. I'm in the boat that not all drugs should be legal, but users shouldn't be criminals either.
I think certain drugs should remain illegal due to their addictive nature and the swaying power power that withdrawal has on an individual. The withdrawal will have them do things that will effect ithers
Sugar and caffeine can be addictive too. And punishing people before they actually harm others goes against "innocent until proven guilty."
Caffeine withdrawal isn't known to alter ones personality to the point where they'll do literally anything to get another cup of coffee.
True. Alcohol and cigarettes might do that though, and those are legal.
I don't agree on the cigarette bit, but I suppose you're right about alcohol. But seriously, do you think any person can just casually use heroin? Many can casually use alcohol. Can the same be said about heroin
I dont even go to the library.
Either you need to read more or your joke was not really fun
Not by voter affiliation, but my political ideology falls more in line with the Libertarian platform than my other options.
Ha ha is that party real? All this time I thought it was democrats making fun of republicans.
Uh, yeah... And we're completely different than republicans.
Only difference is that you love puppies :)
Haha :) There are many differences between the two parties. They do share some similar economic views though, which is where confusion usually comes in.
The libertarians are further from any of the two parties who occupy DC than they are from each other. Dems and GOP are very similar, they both want a big government which control what we do.
Tom is right. Republicans won't admit that, but it's true.
I for one an firmly convinced that if we gave libertarians a majority, they would legalize pot on the first day and not much else would get done after that.
If you mean majority political power, then yeah, that's kind of the point - a government that, at most, does literally nothing.
All right. You sold me.
The NSA would be drastically pulled back
Pulled back? Destroyed.
3% of libertarians are stupid
Nah, I'd say they're either trolls or consider themselves lowercase-"L" libertarians unaffiliated with the actual party. Personally I'm the latter, but I still answered yes.
Does anyone else usually read that as "Librarian?"
Libertarianism is just the latest political fad. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
it's growing because the majority of Americans are not satisfied with both parties. it's not a fad at all
Yes it is.
Also, Libs are more than willing to vote on party lines, making them no different then the Rs or Ds.
Libs could be short for liberals.
Thank you for that PSA.
We've been around for a long time. The internet has made us more visable, that's about it though.