On the Nature of Libertarianism

[Chance]

This subject came up in a non-Romper Room thread and I didn't want to derail the thread any further by saying something. People's opinions of libertarians tend to be all over the map, so I'm curious to hear what people have to say.

I identify (heh) as a small-L "libertarian." Emphasis on the 'L' being small as I think "Libertarians" are effectively optimistic anarchists. I'm definitely not an anarchist: I don't hate the government, I just acknowledge that it's terrible at pretty much everything. On social issues, I tend to be pretty liberal, but am conservative almost everywhere else. And I don't really have the credentials to critique the minutia of economics, but I think I'm qualified to say, "Spending more money than you have is bad."

I'm honestly not that familiar with "Libertarians" as a party, and there's a lot of cringe-inducing stuff out there about how the world would be wonderful if there weren't any rules. I prefer a "hands-off" approach, but the complete absence of any kind of restraint doesn't make sense to me.

So, does the above match up with how most people view libertarians? Am I politically confused, and should actually be aligned with some other movement? Are more people leaning towards libertarianism because they're fed up with the two parties we have now?

Discuss.

[OlongJohnson]

This guy has some interesting thoughts on the topic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EYM8sQlMic

[Robinson]

I don't identify as a Libertarian or even a libertarian -- some that I've met have shown me that they are just as capable of having messed up thinking as anyone else. Of course, it's also true they can be pretty squared away. Anarchists, or people who think they are, are just annoying.

I do find attractive the idea of a small government with limited powers that goes about the tasks of securing the borders, paving the roads, providing a framework for commerce, that kind of thing -- and stays out of our business. I don't think we'll ever see it.

None of the political parties -- Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian really represent me and my beliefs completely. I tend fiscally conservative, socially "mind your own business", and am in favor of politicians who show they care about upholding the Constitution. Again, not many earn really high marks in this.

I was hoping Rand Paul would do better in the presidential race. I don't think he labels himself a Libertarian either though.

[ssb]

I was an active member of a state Libertarian (big-L) party for several years. College and such. I'm familiar with some of the, uh, I'll call them quirks of the party and its members. I'm no longer affiliated with any political party, though I do consider myself mostly a small-L libertarian for the most part. I'll deliberately capitalize "Libertarian" to distinguish between the big- and little-L variants.

Libertarians brand themselves as anti-aggression. There's this whole non-aggression principle thing that gets nerded out to, which basically states, "I'm not going to start anything, but it is just for me to respond if you do." In principle, that's fine and I'd argue that most people go through life adhering to that in some form; nobody wants to be the bully, but everybody's cool with punching the bully in the face. The wheels fall off soon after this point.

Coercion is synonymous with aggression to Libertarians. Therein lies their problem with the State, and their mortal enemy, the "statist" (i.e. everybody who looks at using government action as a tool to solve certain problems). Since all government action is ultimately backed up by, "comply or we're going to forcibly put you in a cage," they view state action as inherently coercive -- and thus violative of that whole non-aggresison principle. No, the government isn't threatening to put you in a cage if you don't agree with them building that bridge, but they will lock you up if you refuse to pay the taxes which fund that bridge. Because taxation is backed up by that threat, it is coercive -- and therefore wrong, as it violates the NAP. Thus, to them, "taxation is theft."

The more moral move, to Libertarians, is voluntary contribution on the part of participants. The community wants to bridge that creek? Residents put up the money to do so. However, as basically every charity ever has proven, everybody's cool with curing cancer; not everybody is cool with donating to do so.

As most people realize, however, we're not going to get anywhere as a country (which Libertarians do support as a concept -- they don't want no government, but they do want a form of government that's unworkable outside of utopia) if we cannot organize and develop a system where some body has the ability to act on behalf of all of us for the common good (and preferably that body gets there as a result of regular and free elections). Furthermore, in Utopia people always act in consideration of both their own interests and societal/community interests; in Reality, people do not. That is a reason (but not the only reason -- our winner-take-all electoral system, ballot access laws, and outreach failures on the part of the party also contribute) why they have virtually no presence as a party at the state level, and none at the national level.

There's other stuff out there that puts people off (I once heard a Libertarian congressional candidate argue that he's OK with vending machines selling crack cocaine at daycare centers, as his argument was that no parent would send their child to that daycare center and thus the danger would be moot) but the above slide from "don't start none, won't be none" to "taxation is theft" is what sinks them as a workable political platform in my view. Libertarians attract a diverse collection of issue voters -- they're strong on gun rights (attracts the gun crowd), pro-drug legalization (attracts the college crowd), pro-limited government (attracts and then confuses Tea Party members who really only want limited government for certain things, but not all things -- like most people, actually; the bickering is just over what areas to limit/expand), anti-The Current State of Policing (for lack of a better way to put it; it's an attempt [that's failing miserably] to make inroads with the African American crowd), anti-war (attracts the pacifist types), etc. etc. etc. Apart from the true believers, however, they don't really attract platform voters (people who buy into it all, or at least the vast majority of it).

---

libertarians (little-l) on the other hand could be described as classical liberals, generally in favor of individual rights that are limited only when they infringe on the rights of others. They tend to favor a more restrained government (anti-nanny state) as well as a fiscally-responsible government, but generally aren't going to be the taxation as theft sort, as they recognize that government is good at providing certain things that the private sector isn't; however, that doesn't mean that government is always the answer to an issue (Reagan, or at least Reagan's words). Thinking along those lines doesn't make you confused, and you'll probably find some aspects of both parties that you may agree with.

[RevolverRob]

Libertarian, like Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Buddhist, Christian, etc. Comes in a variety of flavors.

At its core, Libertarianism is in some ways a more codified and concrete form of 18th and 19th century Liberalism. The core component is to maximize liberty and maintain an extremely high degree of individual autonomy. Beyond that there are some schools that differ, significantly, in how to achieve that goal. The Libertarian Party in the US is actually a mixture of Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism, that in some ways (most? Perhaps.) represents a minarchist viewpoint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism).

On a personal front, I maintain a status as a "small L" libertarian, because I believe in a personal mixture of political philosophies that tends towards maximum liberty and maximum individual autonomy. Though, I recognize a genuine need for a state for maintaining a judicial system necessary to protect private property and for the common defense of our sovereignty. And I maintain this position, because one of greatest existential threats to the American citizenry is growing governmental creep, nanny-statism, and complete lack of an autonomous ethic. All of which are present in the current two-party "Conservative/Liberal" (supposed) system in our country.

However, I also tend towards a geolibertarianism form of collective ownership of natural resources and management, because frankly, we have not demonstrated that laissez-faire capitalism can produce well reasoned and maintained use of global natural resources. Instead we have demonstrated time and time again, a winner-takes-all approach that harbors very little, if any, ability to temper greed with long-term success. And because Anthropogenic Driven Climate Change is the single greatest existential threat to mankind within the foreseeable future.

[Chance]

I was an active member of a state Libertarian (big-L) party for several years. College and such. I'm familiar with some of the, uh, I'll call them quirks of the party and its members. I'm no longer affiliated with any political party, though I do consider myself mostly a small-L libertarian for the most part. I'll deliberately capitalize "Libertarian" to distinguish between the big- and little-L variants.

I think SSB has summed it up very well.





At its core, Libertarianism is in some ways a more codified and concrete form of 18th and 19th century Liberalism. The core component is to maximize liberty and maintain an extremely high degree of individual autonomy. Beyond that there are some schools that differ, significantly, in how to achieve that goal. The Libertarian Party in the US is actually a mixture of Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism, that in some ways (most? Perhaps.) represents a minarchist viewpoint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism).

On a personal front, I maintain a status as a "small L" libertarian, because I believe in a personal mixture of political philosophies that tends towards maximum liberty and maximum individual autonomy. Though, I recognize a genuine need for a state for maintaining a judicial system necessary to protect private property and for the common defense of our sovereignty. And I maintain this position, because one of greatest existential threats to the American citizenry is growing governmental creep, nanny-statism, and complete lack of an autonomous ethic. All of which are present in the current two-party "Conservative/Liberal" (supposed) system in our country.


What Rob said.

[JAD]

I try to be exactly as libertarian as Ronald Reagan was.

[Joe in PNG]

I'm another of those small l libertarian types, but I used to be registered under the big L party. I swapped to Republican a few years ago.
Partly because Florida is a closed primary state, and I do like to have a say in who's going to be running in the general.
And partly because the big L party is... well... not really ready for primetime. If the Libertarian Party was a gun maker, they'd be Kel-Tec.

[Totem Polar]

Judas H. Priest... I really don't know. I mean, I'm from rural E Washington state; expecting someone from that upbringing to be anything other than socially liberal/fiscal-constitutional-security-borders conservative is like expecting someone from Yemen or Somalia to be Baptist. I yam what I yam. And I don't have a party. {/shrug}