Thing you hate about the Libertarians the most

[John Dibble]

here is the bottom-line: libertarians (both those of the philosophical persuasion, as well as those who are actually members of the Libertarian Party or some other business-friendly entity like the Club for Growth or Americans for Tax Reform) do not have the numbers to influence either major party -it is a fact that it is only the Christian evangelicals on the right, and economic populists (or socialists, if you prefer) on the left who compose the vast majority of their parties' grassroots.  when it comes down to it, outside this forum, the vast majority of this country are in fact liberals with regard to economic issues like health care, social security, and so forth.  they just happen to be more socially conservative.

let's face it, you guys may talk the good talk, but frankly, when it comes down to electoral math, you would be all but irrelevant if it wasn't for the fact that your natural allies, the corporations, bankroll both political parties.  in short, it is your deep pockets that make up for your small numbers.....   

Back it up. Your opinion is just that as far as I'm concerned - opinion, and opinion not founded on any scientific basis. And most people are not economic liberals - most are centrists, aka moderates.

This article is a few years old, but the results are probably similar to today's electorate: http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=145

most people now consider themselves conservatives rather than liberals, but when you really pin them down on the issues, they are often more liberal than they are conservative -it is all about the brand name.  you should really read Naomi Klein's 'No Logo' to get a feel for what i am trying to say.

with regard to proof, well, i'll just pick an example -health care.  most Americans would favor single-payer health care over the system we have now according to this poll:

 "Which of these do you think is more important: providing health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, OR, holding down taxes, even if it means some Americans do not have health care coverage?"  Options rotated
    
             Coverage For All    Holding Down Taxes   Unsure       
        %                          %                        %       
10/03    79                      17                             4       
12/99    71                      26                             3       
                  
"Which would you prefer: the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance, OR, a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers?" Options rotated
      
            Current System   Universal Program  Unsure       
        %                         %                            %       
10/03    33                     62                         6       
                  
Asked of respondents who answered "universal program":
"Would you support or oppose a universal health insurance program if it limited your own choice of doctors?"
      
               Support Oppose    Unsure       
      %       %         %       
10/03       57           41      2       
                  
Asked of respondents who answered "universal program":
"Would you support or oppose a universal health insurance program if it meant there were waiting lists for some non-emergency treatments?"
      
               Support    Oppose    Unsure       
      %       %         %       
10/03        62           33      5

http://www.pollingreport.com/health1.htm#Delivery

Yeah, lots of people are for social security privatization too. But tell them the actual costs and the numbers go down - notice here the costs aren't mentioned. What would you expect to happen if people actually knew how much universal health care would raise taxes?

[Democratic Hawk]

I wouldn't say I hate libertarians but of all the ideological spheres, I'm probably less libertarian than I am populist, liberal or, even, conservative

I think there is a fine line between civil liberties and taking liberties

Dave

[John Dibble]

I wouldn't say I hate libertarians but of all the ideological spheres, I'm probably less libertarian than I am populist, liberal or, even, conservative

I think there is a fine line between civil liberties and taking liberties

Dave

You feel we 'take' liberties? What liberties would those be?

[Democratic Hawk]

I wouldn't say I hate libertarians but of all the ideological spheres, I'm probably less libertarian than I am populist, liberal or, even, conservative

I think there is a fine line between civil liberties and taking liberties

Dave

You feel we 'take' liberties? What liberties would those be?

It's not particurlarly directed at libertarians but the message I'm making is that I don't find it necessarily acceptable to do what you want, to whom you want whenever you want ...  There are norms and values which must be adhered to in a civil society, such to enhance and protect freedom if anything

For example, there are those who support positions like legalising, or decriminalising, paedophelia. That's the point I'm making. Lines need to be drawn between what is acceptable and what is not

Dave

[John Dibble]

I wouldn't say I hate libertarians but of all the ideological spheres, I'm probably less libertarian than I am populist, liberal or, even, conservative

I think there is a fine line between civil liberties and taking liberties

Dave

You feel we 'take' liberties? What liberties would those be?

It's not particurlarly directed at libertarians but the message I'm making is that I don't find it necessarily acceptable to do what you want, to whom you want whenever you want ...  There are norms and values which must be adhered to in a civil society, such to enhance and protect freedom if anything

For example, there are those who support positions like legalising, or decriminalising, paedophelia. That's the point I'm making. Lines need to be drawn between what is acceptable and what is not

Dave

Gotcha. We libertarians contend you should be able to do pretty much anything you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else - paedophelia is not allowable, because it hurts kids.

[Will F.D. People]

Gotcha. We libertarians contend you should be able to do pretty much anything you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else - paedophelia is not allowable, because it hurts kids.

Whew. I personally am very uncomfortable to the point of being hurt whenever anyone says anything that is favorable to Hillary Clinton. I am glad the Libertarians join me in my quest to stamp out all positive references to Hillary Clinton in the culture.

[John Dibble]

Gotcha. We libertarians contend you should be able to do pretty much anything you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else - paedophelia is not allowable, because it hurts kids.

Whew. I personally am very uncomfortable to the point of being hurt whenever anyone says anything that is favorable to Hillary Clinton. I am glad the Libertarians join me in my quest to stamp out all positive references to Hillary Clinton in the culture.

Uhm, sorry, that's not really the kind of harm we're talking about.

Besides, such an action would take away people's right to free speech, a greater harm than you being offended.

[Will F.D. People]

Gotcha. We libertarians contend you should be able to do pretty much anything you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else - paedophelia is not allowable, because it hurts kids.

Whew. I personally am very uncomfortable to the point of being hurt whenever anyone says anything that is favorable to Hillary Clinton. I am glad the Libertarians join me in my quest to stamp out all positive references to Hillary Clinton in the culture.

Uhm, sorry, that's not really the kind of harm we're talking about.

Besides, such an action would take away people's right to free speech, a greater harm than you being offended.

I see. So who gets to decide if my harm is the "greater" or "lesser" harm?

The offense I feel towards positive references to Hillary Clinton is very real. I can hear you saying that it is all in my head, and doesn't cause me to have real damage and so forth, but since you aren't me, how do you know how I experience my offense at positive references to Hillary Clinton?

Let's take the paedophile example. Would someone have the right in the Libertarian Utopia to walk up to children on the street and say sexually explicit things? I hope that the Libertarians would see this as an invasion of the children's rights, even though the paedophile would just be exercising free speech and any "harm" the children receive is all in their minds.

Suppose instead of running up to people, a paedophile just stood in his front yard wearing a raincoat and then said sexually explicit things to the children who walked by. I am not so sure how Liberatarians would feel about that. People don't HAVE to walk by his house, after all. But suppose the paedohile lives on a busy street, and it would be huge inconvenience for people to go out of their way to avoid him. Whose rights take precedence -- the guy's right to free speech on his own property versus the pedestrian child's right to not receive the mental harm undoubtably being dished out?

[Redefeatbush04]

The paleo-libertarian/anarcho-capitalist branch which gives the party a bad name (Philip/Richius/Bono)

[John Dibble]

I see. So who gets to decide if my harm is the "greater" or "lesser" harm?

Well, normally it's quite apparent if you use a lick of common sense. Though, the right to free speech is in the Constitution, so you'll have a pretty hard time going above that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Offense isn't harm - it's offense. You've lost nothing, nor has your body been injured. The right to free speech pretty much gaurantees you will be offended occassionally. If someone offends you, you can leave, tell them to leave, change the channel, or whatever the particular situation calls for.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, first off, you shouldn't use the words 'Libertarian' and 'Utopia' next to eachother - any good libertarian realizes that utopia is impossible.

Now, second, I would suppose it depends on degree - how sexually explicit are we talking here? Even though free speech is gauranteed, you couldn't say things like "I'm gonna rape you" without fear of reprecussion, because that declares intent to commit a crime.

Also, I'm not against laws pertaining to this little concept called 'harassment' - you have the right to free speech, but if I ask you to stop bothering me you should respect my space. In the case of children and the freako, the parents could ask the man to stop, and the person could get whatever punishment harassment warrants if they continue to violate that request.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think harassment might apply here too. If they actually got on his property, that might be one thing, but he'd be harassing people who are on public property(meaning it is owned by everyone, so it is not unreasonable for there to be some reasonable behavioral standards determined via democracy).

[A18]

Libertarian and utopia are completely compatible terms. However, it is not the only compatible term.

[John Dibble]

Libertarian and utopia are completely compatible terms. However, it is not the only compatible term.

Maybe the terms are compatible, but the idea of utopia itself is ludicrous - the world will never be perfect, no matter what political ideology is being implemented.

[A18]

A libertarian utopia is just a hypothetical world where everything is perfectly libertarian. He was essentially asking about your ideology.

I don't think he was saying libertarians think utopia is achievable.

[John Dibble]

A libertarian utopia is just a hypothetical world where everything is perfectly libertarian. He was essentially asking about your ideology.

I don't think he was saying libertarians think utopia is achievable.

True. Though, if that's the case, any paedophiles would all restrain their urges.

[Will F.D. People]

I see. So who gets to decide if my harm is the "greater" or "lesser" harm?

Well, normally it's quite apparent if you use a lick of common sense. Though, the right to free speech is in the Constitution, so you'll have a pretty hard time going above that.

As you point out below, the right to free speech is not absolute (yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater and all that), and you make a good point about harrassment. We then have to figure out the dividing line between your right to speak and my right to not be harrassed.

For me, hearing positive things about Hillary Clinton is harrassment, but enough about her.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but I think we agree that the child who hears unwanted sexually explicit material is being harmed -- it is harrassment, as you say -- although it does not meet your test of the child either losing something or having his/her body injured.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK, fine -- assume a world where Libertarians control all branches of the government and their platform is fully realized. I am trying to find out what that world is like, and whether it is a viable alternative to what we have. Is Libertarianism a practical alternative to what we have or just a theoretical concept like the frictionless plane in physics?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For the unwanted sexual speech, I am not thinking about declarations to commit a crime. Just things like "I think it would be fun to . . . " or "You turn me on", stuff like that. For me that is clearly within the bounds of harrassment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, in my neighborhood it is common for the older elementary school kids and the middle school kids to walk to school. There is no adult around to ask the freakos to stop. Are you comfortable with a society where the freakos are given this much free rein?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think harassment might apply here too. If they actually got on his property, that might be one thing, but he'd be harassing people who are on public property(meaning it is owned by everyone, so it is not unreasonable for there to be some reasonable behavioral standards determined via democracy).
[/quote]

I think we agree here. Through democracy, society can set reasonable standards on behavior. I am thinking from your earlier comments that my wanting to not hear positive comments about Hillary Clinton fails the "reasonable" test, though it seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Now for my next example: Times Square, New York City. This used to be overrun with hard-core strip clubs and street walkers. Now from what I know about Libertarians, they are pretty much OK with strip clubs and street walkers. The problem was that this area was just a cesspool for people who had to live and work there, or even walk through there to get from the train station to their jobs.

Guiliani came in and said we are going to close down the hard core strip clubs and use the cops to chase away the streetwalkers. He got zoning laws through which restricted where strip clubs could operate. As I understand it, Libertarians are no fan of zoning laws. If I own a piece of property, I should be able to put a strip club, poker room, lazer tag emporium, or a tranquil Japanese garden on it without having to answer to any governmental authority. So I imagine the Libertarians would be opposed to the steps that Guiliani took.

The problem for the Libertarians is that Times Square is now a wonderful, thriving place. Movie theaters, nice hotels in a variety of price ranges, a huge selection of restaurants, the worlds biggest Toys 'R Us featuring an indoor, full-size Ferris wheel -- it's really a nice spot to live, work, and visit.

So I would ask the Libertarians -- can you see how the suffocating environment of the old hard-core strip club and streetwalker-infested Times Square actually impinges on the rights of the people who work, live, and pass through there to not be harrassed with things they find disgusting? And that by cleaning it up, you are actually enhancing the rights of these people? And who decided that the rights of people to solicit prostitution and run hard-core strip clubs was outweighed by the rights of people to have a livable Time Square? Democracy did, through elected officials. So do the Libertarians join me in applauding what has happened to Times Square over the last 10 years?

[Bono]

The paleo-libertarian/anarcho-capitalist branch which gives the party a bad name (Philip/Richius/Bono)

Almost all paleo-libertarians are republicans.

[minionofmidas]

The fact that they stole that beautiful name, once a synonym for Bakunist Anarchism.
I don't hate Libertarians.

[Bono]

The fact that they stole that beautiful name, once a synonym for Bakunist Anarchism.
I don't hate Libertarians.

It's the left's fault for hijacking the the name "liberal".

[John Dibble]

Too tired to answer everything, so I'll just make a few points.

OK, fine -- assume a world where Libertarians control all branches of the government and their platform is fully realized. I am trying to find out what that world is like, and whether it is a viable alternative to what we have. Is Libertarianism a practical alternative to what we have or just a theoretical concept like the frictionless plane in physics?

Well, first off, it's never practical to have a one party system - regardless of the fact that I like the Libertarian Party above all others, it should never have complete control forever. If kept in power too long, it would lead to corruption. I'd like a good, moderate party as our opponents if that was possible.

Libertarianism is a practical alternative, in my view. It stresses small government, greater local control over government, fiscal responsibility/efficiency, and greater individual freedoms. These are attainable things, though they'll require no small amount of work to occur.

I think the main problem with Libertarians, however, is that the way they wish to implement libertarian policy is impractical - it's too quick, too drastic, and that scares people. Moves towards any ideology must be done over time if they are to be lasting and effective - Rome wasn't built in a day, after all.

I also think our foreign policy is impractical - we could be a bit more hawkish. My stance is mostly non-intervention, as per the party platform, but I believe in taking out governments that attack other nations for the sake of conquest - appeasement only leads to more powerful tyrants, such as Hitler, who eventually will end up attacking you if you let them grow in power too much. There are otherwise too many tyrants to take out, so I would leave them be for the most part so long as they'll stay in their own borders.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Street-walkers - well, many libertarians believe that it would be fine to illegalize street prostitution so long as the institution is legal. A mild regulation just forbidding soliciting on public property, same reasoning as I used before. Brothels should be legal, and regulated somewhat as well to ensure there's no minors and that the women are 'clean'. This would also greatly reduce the need for pimps, one of the more undesirable parts of street prostitution - they are basically slavers, so getting the women no longer having to rely on them is good.

Same goes for drugs - if legal and regulated they would be cheaper, and be sold at stores, so drug dealers wouldn't walk the streets so much. Besides, the dealers get their supply from drug lords, and producers would see cheap production and legal sale at stores as a better deal, so they'd have no reason to supply the dealers any more.

Strip Clubs - I'm not a big fan of them myself, but I support them being legal. However, in clear view of public property, I wouldn't mind some slight regulation on what can be displayed on the outside.

Zoning Laws - zoning is ok when it is moderate and locally controlled(I absolutely despise the idea of anything higher than county government imposing it). Some Libs agree with me. It is shown in studies that when two or more 'adult entertainment' shops of any type are near eachother crime in the area increases, and it makes perfect sense why - first come the prostitutes and the pimps, then comes the drug dealers to sell to their customers and the crack whores, then comes the crime that comes with the black market of drugs. Now, if drugs and prostitution were not black market items, but rather were legal and moderately regulated, much of the problems caused by their black market status would greatly diminish, so there'd be less of a problem in the first place.

As far as Guiliani, I'm not totally familiar with the steps that he took. He may have taken some good ones, some bad. He may have crossed some lines somewhere, I'm not sure. I'm just hoping any businesses he shut down were compensated or given good options for relocation. Any time the government does something it's usually by coercion, so it's always best if the damage to the individual can be minimized.

[minionofmidas]

The fact that they stole that beautiful name, once a synonym for Bakunist Anarchism.
I don't hate Libertarians.

It's the left's fault for hijacking the the name "liberal".

You're probably right...although that was a different part of the left, and of course "Two wrongs don't make a right."

[Blerpiez]

They are not willing enough to leave their principles.  For example, Libertarians believe that citizens should be able to bear arms, and many take that to an insane level of letting children bring guns to school, peopl own whatever weapons they want, etc.

[John Dibble]

They are not willing enough to leave their principles.  For example, Libertarians believe that citizens should be able to bear arms, and many take that to an insane level of letting children bring guns to school, peopl own whatever weapons they want, etc.

1. The vast majority of Libertarians do not believe children should be able to bring guns to school. Where did you get this idea? Heck, most of us think that kids shouldn't own guns - it's an adult responsibility, like driving, you have to be of age to handle it.

2. The majority of us don't think people should be able to own 'whatever weapons they want'. I'd think that most of us draw the line somewhere below nukes. The standard would be fully automatic weapons I think.

[Bono]

The standard would be fully automatic weapons I think.

Thus making it, in fact, harsher then today's legislation, which allows the owning of RPGs, Artillery Devices and others.

[John Dibble]

The standard would be fully automatic weapons I think.

Thus making it, in fact, harsher then today's legislation, which allows the owning of RPGs, Artillery Devices and others.

Yeah, but the owning of those things is still draconian - you have to go through so much crap to get them. I'm just talking about the standard stuff most people should be allowed to own.

[jokerman]

Libertarianism, in itself, is the dumbest damn sham anyone has ever come up with.  The supposed idea that lack of government will automatically create "liberty."  I don't know why they take the name "libertiarian, as if they actually support "liberty."  Government is the only thing that is a cause of enslavement. They suppport legalizing harmful drugs, which enslave the mind.  They support less-corporate regulation and less government, which enslaves the poor and middle class.  I don't know how people get tricked into believing their utter nonsense.