Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Liquid]

To me, Rand Paul represents what Libertarians (big L) needed to be doing all along. It's a dirty game, but you have to play to win. Rand has gained more influence in four years than the entire liberty movement in the past 40 years.

All we need is sane people in power and an appeal to reason. Then you'll eventually arrive at the libertarian position.

Just to be clear, do you mean getting your libertarianism over via a Republican ticket?

 

[Omnis]

Might as well. Before we go libertarian we have to at least re-approach sane territory in our political landscape. Right now it's so far off from what ought to be American. It'd be nice to have a President that follows the constitution and an government where its rules matter.

Big L Libertarians are bat**** insane though. They marginalize themselves with marijuana and getting themselves arrested. Every election an LP candidate gets arrested for something to do with a ballot or a debate. It's ridiculous.

I can't agree since I believe in a right to health for everyone, something libertarians would baulk at. Notice I didn't say healthcare, a distinction that is going to become increasingly more relevant in the coming years.

Sorry, but that is complete boocheat. Nobody has a right to health. It's something to baulk at because the notion is completely absurd. Wellness is a privilege. Diseases or disorders don't take into account whatever right to health to which you think people are entitled.

The market let the individual and the general population down.

What market? Criminal management and the government-created apparatus let people down.

 

[KSaiyu]

Sorry, but that is complete boocheat. Nobody has a right to health. It's something to baulk at because the notion is completely absurd. Wellness is a privilege. Diseases or disorders don't take into account whatever right to health to which you think people are entitled.

Yes wellness is a privilege, which is a separate entity to health unless you equate health solely with wellness. There is no universal definition of health, but generally we should try for equal opportunity for the attainment of it.

What market? Criminal management and the government-created apparatus let people down.

The healthcare provision market. So this includes medical insurance, hospital organisations, primary care practices etc.

 

[Famine]

The parents didn't hold power - the governors did. The governors were more in tune with what the parents wanted

So the parents held the power.

The ones who were complaining were those who opposed the radicalisation.

Damn good job the public schooling system allows parents to withdraw their children from school on grounds of not liking what's being taught and have them put into another public school instead.

Oh, wait.

Yes wellness is a privilege, which is a separate entity to health unless you equate health solely with wellness. There is no universal definition of health, but generally we should try for equal opportunity for the attainment of it.

That's beyond our abilities in a significant number of cases. Though the private sector and charities are working hard to solve that. In any case...

The healthcare provision market.

...if something has to be provided by someone else, it's not a right. If it were, you'd be entitled to their labour whether they want to provide it or not - and we have a word for that.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm worried if the individiual can't become "individiual" in the first place.

He's born. He's an individual. Now protect his rights.

The current problems we have in Tower Hamlets is a good start.

I'm sorry, which part is an example of anything remotely Libertarian?

The complaints were ignored in large part by the local autorities (perhaps central government) because of fears of coming across as racist/insensitive. For a similar, and far worse situation read about the Rochdale child grooming scandal.

Great. If leadership is incompetent or doing something you disagree with then parents should have the ability to change schools. If they choose not to then they either must accept the system or work to change it.

The parents didn't hold power - the governors did. The governors were more in tune with what the parents wanted, and dealt with problematic teachers accordingly. The ones who were complaining were those who opposed the radicalisation.

So, they were responding to the wants of the parents of the kids? Why didn't those complaining move their kids?

Not really. She's been outed as a useless MP (true for the majority of them unfortunately).

As I am unsure how politics work in the UK, she should either be voted out or have whoever appointed her have to answer for it, possibly by being voted out. Unless it is what people wanted.

The letter is believed to have been a fake - a way of attracting national attention since concerns were being ignored.

OK. So, it wasn't a secret plot? Whether it was the official name or not, you aren't answering my question.

They could in this world too....

Then why didn't they? Whose fault is it that they didn't?

See, it's not a problem to have that little bit of scrutiny. It's unlikely you deal with the after effects of the "individuals" coming out of such systems. It's probable you don't live a few roads down from an honour killing victim. It's doubtful you don't know women who have undergone FGM. It's likely you have a normal male:female birth rate in your area. The problem with giving everyone a free for all with respect to certain established social rules is that you are opening a whole can of worms with how the most vulnerable will be treated.

I just drive 20 miles out of my way to play disc golf because they keep finding bodies in the park closest to my house.

I do feel you missed the part where one person's rights end where another begins. Honor killings and FGM would not be a religious right. Once again you are acting as if libertarian = anarchy.

Yes. We've taken it so far that we're in danger of producing generations of identikit personalities, afraid to question things and think for themselves. I don't think the answer is found at the other extreme however.

Considering what you seem to think the other extreme is, that is not what I am promoting.

Look, make it so that schools can't teach specific views. Oh, they learn it at home and church. You aren't stopping anything.

My tutees think I'm harsh in comparison to the majority of their state school teachers, but it's only because I want them to recognise failure is part of success. Letting someone "fail" in their health decisions is a little more controversial.

Forcing people into health procedures they disagree with, forcing doctors to perform procedures they don't want to participate in, and making others pay for it should be far more controversial than it is.

I can't agree since I believe in a right to health for everyone, something libertarians would baulk at. Notice I didn't say healthcare, a distinction that is going to become increasingly more relevant in the coming years.

I was born without good health. Give me some of yours. I need a heart and yours seems to work fine. Now, make us equal.

With respect to healthcare models, this is not true. America pays far more for less, and for years lived with a huge demographic of uninsured patients. The market let the individual and the general population down.

I am not sure how America = libertarian. False equivalency. Try again. You either misunderstand how the US healthcare system works or how libertarianism works.

A comparison of mortality rates could prove incompetence. I'm not understanding, would it be illegal to be an incompetent surgeon?

Due to purposeful negligence (illegal) or because he just screwed up (legal)? I said purposeful negligence would be illegal, you asked how you could prove it in a case of multiple co-morbidities. I am saying a purposefully negligent doctor would be obvious because it wouldn't be a case. A single case of purposeful negligence has the same ability to be detected no matter the system he operates under. A full-fledged purposefully negligent doctor would not be legal under any system, despite your free-for-all ideas of libertarians.

 

[LeMansAid]

@Danoff I can't find the quote, but I think I remember you suggesting that it should not be a crime to drive drunk, but if a drunk driver causes an accident they should be punished more harshly because they were drunk. Forgive me if it's not your view and I've messed up my recollection. But if that is your view, I find it peculiar. If someone causes an accident and their punishment is greater because they were drunk, the DUI component is speculative and as such I'd have thought against libertarian principles.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff I can't find the quote, but I think I remember you suggesting that it should not be a crime to drive drunk, but if a drunk driver causes an accident they should be punished more harshly because they were drunk. Forgive me if it's not your view and I've messed up my recollection. But if that is your view, I find it peculiar. If someone causes an accident and their punishment is greater because they were drunk, the DUI component is speculative and as such I'd have thought against libertarian principles.

Intent and negligence are factors in sentencing.

 

[LeMansAid]

Intent and negligence are factors in sentencing.

Are you stating that they are, or would be (with a libertarian set up)?

If there's no way to know that drunkenness contributed to the accident, but it factored in the punishment, that's a judgement based on probability. It seems barely dissimilar to having laws based on risk/probability The accident may have had nothing to do with the person being drunk.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Intent and negligence are factors in sentencing.

Would you say that a court might find a driver negligent solely for driving while under the influence of alcohol or would they be negligent-by-degrees-of-drunkenness, or would they have to also be involved in "an incident" for negligence to occur.

Would that negligence automatically involve "intent" (one knows one has imbibed before one drives, presumably)?

 

[Mark T]

Sorry to jump in mid discussion, but can anyone recommend a couple of good libertarian books?

 

[FoolKiller]

Sorry to jump in mid discussion, but can anyone recommend a couple of good libertarian books?

Fiction or non-fiction?

 

[Dotini]

Sorry to jump in mid discussion, but can anyone recommend a couple of good libertarian books?

On this page you can find reviews of important current libertarian works. http://antiwar.com/shops.php
Here you can find more reviews in the arts and letters section: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/web-categories/arts-letters/

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It'd be nice to have a President that follows the constitution and an government where its rules matter.

Start small, Omnis - how about a government that governs for everyone, and not just the people who voted for them? That's the way our political system has gone, and in the end, nothing gets done and political "debate" amounts to the two sides seeing who can last longer at restating catch-phrases in the loudest possible voice.

 

[Omnis]

political "debate" amounts to the two sides seeing who can last longer at restating catch-phrases

how about a government that governs for everyone, and not just the people who voted for them?

 

[Dotini]

It'd be nice to have a President that follows the constitution and an government where its rules matter.

To say one thing and do another is the very essence of insanity.

That is the problem of having a Constitution - the highest law of the land - which is ignored, disrespected and disobeyed.

In such a system of cognitive dissonance, there comes about a universal corruption of the rule of law, and all things come into flux and possibility, including the loss of assumed-to-be-traditional rights and liberty.

 

[Danoff]

Would you say that a court might find a driver negligent solely for driving while under the influence of alcohol or would they be negligent-by-degrees-of-drunkenness, or would they have to also be involved in "an incident" for negligence to occur.

Would that negligence automatically involve "intent" (one knows one has imbibed before one drives, presumably)?

Most of that would be up to society to determine - what they feel the appropriate sentence for reckless driving while under the influence should be. My position is that when you take actions that put yourself in a position to be more likely to commit a crime (such as drinking prior to reckless driving), that your actions demonstrate the degree to which you are devaluing the rights of others, and that that can be a factor in what your sentence is.

The one bone I will pick with that you wrote is that there needs to be a crime committed - reckless driving in this case (specifically, a refusal to control your vehicle within the required parameters set by the property owner, in most cases that would be the public, which is actually a form of breach of contract, but I digress). Once the crime is committed, negligence could be established by being drunk, or a variety of other actions or states such as being fatigued or even talking on a cell phone.

 

[A2K78]

Sorry to jump in mid discussion, but can anyone recommend a couple of good libertarian books?

Anything by:

L. Von Mises
Tom Woods
Hayek
Ron Paul
Murray Rothbard

and some recommended

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/robert-wenzel/become-a-smarter-libertarian/ reads:

 

[Omnis]

Anything by:

L. Von Mises
Tom Woods
Hayek
Ron Paul
Murray Rothbard

and some recommended

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/robert-wenzel/become-a-smarter-libertarian/ reads:

You're crazy. That's all advanced reading.

@Mark T, what kind of books are you looking for? Introductory? Are you interested in Austrian Econ? Because that is a distinct thing separate from libertarianism. See below:



For the fundamental understanding of and rationale behind libertarianism, read Bastiat's essay "The Law" . It's short, and it's literally the only thing you need to read. Anything else is just advanced insight.

For econ books, read Hazlitt's One Lesson and go from there. The three greatest thinkers are probably Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe. Each one a student of the one before, you'll see Mises's economics treatise influence Rothbard's political philosophy in addition to his expansion of the econ side. Hoppe takes that political philosophy to its conclusion and basically explains the what why and how of everything. You'll learn about all of that and more if you read Peter Boettke's Living Economics. It's a good book that goes over all the history and everything in addition to how the econ and political philosophy are married together.

 

[Mark T]

You're crazy. That's all advanced reading.

@Mark T, what kind of books are you looking for? Introductory? Are you interested in Austrian Econ? Because that is a distinct thing separate from libertarianism. See below:



For the fundamental understanding of and rationale behind libertarianism, read Bastiat's essay "The Law" . It's short, and it's literally the only thing you need to read. Anything else is just advanced insight.

For econ books, read Hazlitt's One Lesson and go from there. The three greatest thinkers are probably Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe. Each one a student of the one before, you'll see Mises's economics treatise influence Rothbard's political philosophy in addition to his expansion of the econ side. Hoppe takes that political philosophy to its conclusion and basically explains the what why and how of everything. You'll learn about all of that and more if you read Peter Boettke's Living Economics. It's a good book that goes over all the history and everything in addition to how the econ and political philosophy are married together.

I'm about three quarters of the way through Bastiat's "The Law" and so far everything seems pretty clear. The main reason for wanting to know more about libertarianism is that I don't see how government(s) can continue to run as they are. With massive ongoing debt and rising taxes I'm sure there is a better way. The state is getting bigger, more intrusive and I feel it discourages personal responsibility.

Between my wife and I we probably pay around £1000 per month in income tax and national insurance. I know that's just the direct tax taken from our income without other duties and VAT added onto every day items. From that £1000 per month we could both afford private healthcare (we're both non-smokers and live a healthy lifestyle). We could also afford to invest more in our own pensions. We would probably also spend more which would help the economy and create jobs.

It's a really interesting subject and I want to read more into instances where libertarian practices have been put in place with successful outcomes.

 

[Keef]

Frederick Douglass: Migration is, and always has been, a fundamental human right

It never has been and it never will be. I'm not sure what ethical basis leads people to declare that every ****ing thing is a "fundamental" human right.

I'm not sure what ethical basis leads people to declare that every ****ing thing is a "fundamental" human right.

See http://openborders.info/right-to-migrate/ and http://openborders.info/libertarian/

I've also never heard of a libertarian who considers any positive rights to be "natural" human rights. Positive rights - a right to safe food, clean water, healthcare, or migration, etc - necessarily imply action is due by others to the right holder. But as any good libertarian knows, this is contrary to the idea of liberty, a negative right, which protects a person from coercion by others. To posit a right of one to go wherever he chooses without permission would be to disregard the rights of others to stay where they are without accomodation. Basically, a right to migration would directly threaten the rights of liberty and property of those wherever a migrant may go, just like rights to food, water and healthcare would.

You could argue it'd be a form of slavery - somebody must provide said food, water, healthcare, or place for the migrant to go, and because these things are rights they must be provided without compensation and possibly against one's will. And that's just no good. I've never heard of a libertarian who would support that.

A much better method would be to simply make it easier for migrants to achieve permission to migrate. Make it easy for them to get visas or attain citizenship, both of which are effectively contractual agreements, a type of agreement which libertarians thoroughly support.

I'm not seeing but a hint of libertarianism in the idea of completely open borders. It seems to have a heavily anarchist bent to me, an idea which no libertarian supports because they understand how thoroughly unsustainable and unfree a condition of anarchy is. The fact that the Wikipedia article on "free migration" cites the UDHR for justification hurts the idea's credibility even further - if a single libertarian in the world supports the UDHR then they clearly misunderstand what they believe in.

I could argue a truer libertarian view on immigration by linking the issue on the Libertarian Party's website but I suppose that would be no less biased than Open Borders attempting to make a libertarian argument for open borders.

I should probably start studying for my ethics final.

Link to Reddit thread

 

[PeterJB]

I can't say I know a huge amount about Libertarianism, but I did find this video quite funny:

 

[DK]

I swear Ann Coulter's blood has a negative pH value.

 

[PeterJB]

I don't really understand what she's talking about half the time, but the way she presents herself is hilarious.

 

[Carbonox]

She's hysterical, I'll give her that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I can't say I know a huge amount about Libertarianism, but I did find this video quite funny:

She still thinks Saddam and Al Qaueeda were linked despite all the battles between them? Sweet Lord. And does her face give anyone else "uncanny valley" syndrome?

EDIT: She's as mad as a goat. ShaMONE.

 

[mustafur]

I'm a serial Libertarian but consider myself politically retired, lost faith in the system after the Ron Paul republican nonsense.

The guy would of been the nominee if it wasn't for in your face political corruption.

 

[Keef]

I'm a serial Libertarian but consider myself politically retired, lost faith in the system after the Ron Paul republican nonsense.

The guy would of been the nominee if it wasn't for in your face political corruption.

Libertarian or libertarian? Just for clarification. The Big L/Little L debate rages on.

I'm a libertarian but I'm not a Libertarian. I vote for whoever is best.

 

[mustafur]

Libertarian or libertarian? Just for clarification. The Big L/Little L debate rages on.

I'm a libertarian but I'm not a Libertarian. I vote for whoever is best.

whats the difference?

I wouldn't call myself utilitarian, but leaning that way.

 

[Keef]

whats the difference?

I wouldn't call myself utilitarian, but leaning that way.

While libertarianism is a general philosophy, there is also a Libertarian Party in the US that runs for office but unfortunately has a minuscule foothold around the country. Oddly, many libertarians are not inclined to subscribe to political parties because of their philosophy on politics.

 

[mustafur]

While libertarianism is a general philosophy, there is also a Libertarian Party in the US that runs for office but unfortunately has a minuscule foothold around the country. Oddly, many libertarians are not inclined to subscribe to political parties because of their philosophy on politics.

Yes I am aware of that party, if I was an American I would of voted for Ron Paul as Republican Party nominee though.